4 years ago by jcims
It's not clear to me what the problem is that the article is outlining.
The Dollar General near me has the exact same brands as you would find in any larger retail establishment, they just have found a way to stock the 80% that folks typically need. They are filling a niche between the gas station convenience store and traditional grocery/big box retail. They don't have a produce section, just a bit of fruit. Is that the issue?
Are the small independent grocery stores in these communities stocking produce? Is Dollar General and the like creating some kind of price cartel that's putting them out of business? I know of two Dollar Generals near me, one in a small one-light town that previously only had a gas station convenience store and people had to drive 12 miles to get anything besides milk, condoms and beef jerky. The other on the outskirts of a small town that still has a thriving small grocery store in the middle of it.
4 years ago by safog
After a couple of levels of indirection, I think the whole argument hinges on one anecdote. It might indicate a general pattern, but no actual authoritative sources back it up.
Original Article quotes
"growing evidence suggests these stores are not merely a byproduct of economic distress. Theyâre a cause of it. In small towns and urban neighborhoods alike, dollar stores are triggering the closure of grocery stores, eliminating jobs, and further eroding the prospects of the vulnerable communities they target"
This links to a report here as a source: https://ilsr.org/dollar-stores-factsheet/
Which cites https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/13/dollar-gene... as its only source.
The actual quote:
"âWe lasted three years and three days after Dollar General opened,â he said. âSales dropped and just kept dropping. We averaged 225 customers a day before and immediately dropped to about 175. A year ago we were down to 125 a day. Basically we lost 35 to 40% of our sales. I lost a thousand dollars a day in sales in three years.â"
4 years ago by jandrewrogers
There is a presumption here that "local" grocery stores are an unalloyed good. In my experience, having grown up in these kinds of places, they were often more exploitive and extractive than the national chains. When Walmart rolls into town, many times it breaks a local monopoly that used this fact to its advantage with both customers and employees.
A problem in the US is that there are many thousands of communities that are below the size/density threshold where the traditional Walmart model makes sense. Dollar General seems to be well-optimized to fill this part of the market.
Another nice thing about national chains is that they mostly stay out of community politics. Local monopoly business owners have a bad tendency to leverage that status into completely unrelated political and personal matters.
4 years ago by Red_Leaves_Flyy
Dollar general is arguably worse than many mom and pop shops theyâre replacing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/dollar-genera...
4 years ago by emodendroket
I generally agree but if the grocers offered fresh produce and the dollar store doesn't the picture is murkier.
4 years ago by etempleton
The grocery business is extremely low margin. The independent grocer is increasingly being squeezed. There really is no way for an independent operator in this space to compete head-to-head on price or selection. If the local market allows they can go niche, or high-end and increase prices further while offering better product/ better customer experience, but most markets wonât support such a store.
4 years ago by RC_ITR
This is the same argument about local newspapers - sure it is probably good to have local reporters covering local events, but replacing $5/line classified ads with Facebook Marketplace probably had a more positive impact on people vs. biased and poorly-read write-ups of a city counsel meetings ever did.
4 years ago by analyte123
Amusing. My personal experience is that DG is awesome. Before DG in the town I'm familiar with if you wanted to buy basic office or school supplies, basic OTC medical supplies that were not a gas-station 2-pack of aspirin, essentially any cookware, or a better variety of packaged goods than the local mediocre grocery store (like detergent, snacks, juice, sauces) you had to drive over 20 miles. The produce that DG does have is fresher than the local store and they also don't try to resell expired meat. Now people can use way less gasoline for their basic needs. Now senior citizens with limited mobility can drive slowly or take a golf cart to DG. Rather than "eroding prospects" it adds to sales tax revenue and makes the town more attractive for tourists, remote workers, and other people who are relocating. Dollar stores also have a small land footprint and use few utilities.
4 years ago by jcims
If there are two underrepresented groups in HN comments its poor folks and people that live in rural communities. This article is just scapegoating 'dollar stores' for scenarios where their growth intersects with environments suffering from incompetent leadership and shitty education as if a) it's the only place these stores exist and b) they are the root cause for the problems being outlined.
4 years ago by JeremyNT
I no longer live in the rural area where I grew up, but near enough that I've been out there periodically.
The Dollar General was a real game changer. Prior to its arrival, you had a 25+ minute/mile (your pick - mostly 55 mph speed limit country roads) drive to the nearest thing passing as a grocery store. When I was a kid there was a gas station, which did sell some food (maybe bread and milk and some canned goods, along with the typical junk food).
DG is such a real improvement for people out that way. It sells the stuff they need at prices that aren't ridiculous.
Crucially, it doesn't displace or undercut anything. There wasn't any other store to displace - even that old gas station is still there! Dollar General is effectively an oasis in a food desert, even with its lack of fresh produce.
I don't know what percentage of Dollar General / Family Dollar / etc type stores are in areas like that, versus in small towns where they might be competing with an IGA or something. But there are definitely places where their presence is a real win.
4 years ago by Jach
Does Amazon refuse to deliver to homes in the town you're familiar with? Doesn't help with produce since not everywhere has same-day Amazon Fresh I guess (and Amazon's isn't very good compared to store alternatives in the Bellevue, WA area), but it hasn't occurred to me to buy basic office/school supplies, OTC medical stuff, or many other things from a store instead of Amazon for a long time.
4 years ago by sokoloff
Dollar General comes in and offers local consumers a bargain that local consumers strongly prefer. Accordingly, local consumers vote with their feet.
Unless the master plan is to run competitors out of town and then change to "Two Dollar General", it seems like Dollar General is good for consumers (at least if you judge by consumers' own revealed preferences).
4 years ago by arrosenberg
It's not really great for them when they leave the store and go back to being citizens of their communities. The dollars they just spent aren't being reinvested by the local owner, they're going to a private equity firm based in New York. That's pretty clearly extractive, rather than being a mutually beneficial relationship.
4 years ago by nicoburns
What is good for consumers may not be good for communities though. I'd argue that there is significant harm perpetuated on economies by the migration of wealth away from wages and small-scale profits of local businesspeople into the profits of large companies.
4 years ago by jimhefferon
Here is a wild guess: a new kind of store sells only the top, say, 50% of items in terms of sales numbers, and sells them for a little less. People out shopping for things all from that group go there. But everybody needs the bottom 50% sometimes, and when they do, that store is no longer around.
4 years ago by Retric
Dollar general does frequently have a high markup in poor communities without alternatives. Itâs for lack of a better term poverty optimized which counterintuitively isnât about the lowest cost per pound of flour etc.
4 years ago by jcims
Dollar General specifically also goes to places that have no local community retail. There is one three miles from me that was built a few years ago in this exact situation. Yet we won't see any quotes about that in articles like this that are just focusing on the negative.
4 years ago by tshaddox
It's always odd to me to throw Dollar General into the same category as Dollar Tree.
Dollar Tree is an actual "dollar store" where literally every item costs $1. Dollar Tree's items are generally no-name discount brands that wouldn't be found in big grocery store chains, or familiar brands in unique very small packages.
Dollar General, at least in the two parts of the US I've seen them in (areas of California and the Midwest), is as you describe: something between a convenience store and a traditional grocery store sans produce. They have all the normal big brands: Oreos, Doritos, etc. in the normal package sizes at what seemed to me to be normal grocery store prices.
4 years ago by imwillofficial
Arenât Dollar Tree and Dollar General owned by the same company?
4 years ago by reducesuffering
No. Separate public US companies. You can buy their stock $DG and $DLTR
4 years ago by tshaddox
As far as I can tell, they're not.
4 years ago by MisterSandman
Same in Canada, except Dollar Tree is Dollar Tree (everything costs $1.25, LOL) and Dollar General is Dollarama (prices range from 0.82c to like $10)
4 years ago by unishark
It is confusing. There's also Family Dollar. I was a bit glad they combined them because I never remember which is which, but it probably does hurt their generalizations.
Also, in my experience when you can find the same items as the grocery, the Dollar store will be cheaper. They somewhat fit the description of a convenience store, but in terms of prices they are at the opposite end of the market with Walmart and Target.
4 years ago by shagmin
I don't think Dollar General is the bad guy so much as a symptom of a problem. As it is, they're often in low income areas and have a high markup. Grocery stores have low margins that prevent them from entering these markets (hence food deserts). Dollar General fills that niche - but as a result low income people who already spend a disproportionate amount of their income on groceries have to pay that higher markup as well. Meanwhile I can go to Trader Joe's or something and get much better stuff, cheaper too.
I remember living in a rural area where people couldn't afford a car, but could walk to a gas station and pay 3x the prices on everything compared to if they bought everything at grocery store - it just helps keep them poor. And often, I think people see "dollar" in the name, and think that automatically means cheap, but being poor doesn't mean being financially literate.
If people weren't segregated into rich areas | poor areas, or maybe grocery stores found some other way to be profitable in low income areas, or some other thing, this wouldn't be such a problem. But as it is right now, they are filling a need, granted with negative side effects.
Edit: I realize the article focuses more on Dollar Generals causing food desserts, rather than being a response to them. Guess I'm focusing on more what I've seen.
4 years ago by mgkimsal
outside of 'food deserts', there may be other factors people shop at DG. There's one a block from my office, and I drop in there now and then to get stuff (snacks, or light bulbs, or whatever). Almost every time I'm in there, I'll see an older person doing what seems to be a weekly shop (or more) - they'll ring up $70+ of stuff - canned/packaged foods. Clearly stuff for meals. They then get in to a taxi or rideshare car and are driven away.
.7 miles from here - in a more convenient area to drive to, is a Lidl, with everything that person bought about 40% cheaper. 1 mile away there's a Wegmans. 1.4 miles away there's Target, Lowes, and Harris Teeter. All just as accessible via taxi/uber as this DG.
The only real thing I can think of in DG's favor is it's very easy in/out - there's 2 counters, no self-checkout, the store is small itself. Just walking around to find what you want in those other stores would take 3-4x as long as hitting the 6 aisles in DG.
But... they're paying a terribly high price for that little bit of convenience. There's been a couple of times I've wanted to tell that person "hey, you can save $20 or more by driving another 3 minutes down the street" but I doubt it would be welcomed. I can't think of a way to intrude that isn't intrusive or patronizing. :/
4 years ago by vasco
> I can't think of a way to intrude that isn't intrusive or patronizing. :/
Because it is, people can spend their money however they like and they can value convenience or have any other reason to shop there. Also being old doesn't make them incapable of deciding where to shop.
4 years ago by chromaton
Strike up a conversation. People do like talking about where to shop for the best bargains. "Hey, does this place have a good deal on X? I usually buy that at Lidl."
4 years ago by thehappypm
It's really hard to spend $70 at a real grocery store, isn't it? I feel like just a small number of items suddenly you're $100+. You certainly can't buy $1 batteries or light bulbs.
4 years ago by MattGaiser
The problem as I understand it is that products arenât priced in a grocery store to all have the same margin.
So the prepared foods and toiletries get marked up to make up for low margins on fresh fruit. Wealthier customers are fine with this as they want to not have to make two trips and they will pay for the fruit.
Dollar stores ditch the fresh stuff and just take a lower margin on the toiletries and prepared food to make up for it, resulting in lower prices. A bit of extra savings matters more to poor people, so they shift those purchases to the dollar store. The grocery storeâs business model fails.
4 years ago by lotsofpulp
The root problem is the populace being too poor to afford fresh fruit. Blaming dollar stores is a waste of time.
4 years ago by protomyth
Well, Walmart's produce isle is cheaper than most prepared food. I would say that a lot of people don't buy it because of inconvenience not price.
4 years ago by freemint
If we have a semi functional system and a change made to it worsens the populations health it is more reasonable to stop this change and reverse over hoping for revolutionary change.
If some company has a buisness model that has negative externalities they should be taxed more for it. When taxing is not responsible because this would hit the poor dispropoertionally the buisness model should be banned.
4 years ago by MattGaiser
What I want to know is whether it actually changes fresh food consumption all that much.
The food desert discussion is about availability.
4 years ago by 908B64B197
In rural areas there's also competition from the Farmer's Market/roadside stalls. Especially during the summer.
4 years ago by rootsudo
I think the argument is that these are the only options in certain areas, so it's marked up higher than grocery stores.
I think many people on HN have not been in a dollar store, not all sell for a "dollar" like Dollar Tree. Dollar General and such usually have a "larger" markup on basic goods.
4 years ago by mithr
Brings to mind Vimes' "'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness", from Terry Pratchett's Discworld:
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."
4 years ago by travisgriggs
I would give 50 upvotes if I could for the Pratchett reference.
And a good explanation to boot.
4 years ago by throwaway0a5e
And I would give 50 downvotes if I could.
The only thing that quote is good for this century is letting upscale consumers pat themselves on the back. Goods are so much cheaper than when that quote was written that using cheaper alternatives and treating them as disposable is often times cheaper in the long run for many classes of goods and usage patterns.
These sorts of tropes and rules of thumb that have been stripped of all nuance and packaged up nice and neatly so that the lowest common denominator consumer on the internet can read, understand and press the up-vote button are good for little more than achieving said upvotes. When subject to the complexities of real life they are wrong as often as they are right. You may as well toss a coin. There are unfortunately no rules of thumb you can follow that will outperform even a minimal application of critical thought.
4 years ago by Jiro
I also read a partial rebuttal which amounted to "Rich people pay less because they can buy more durable boots, but they also pay more because they buy fancier boots, and the increased expense from buying fancier boots is more than the savings from the boots lasting longer."
There's also the question of why the poor person doesn't take out a loan to buy the more expensive boots, and pay off the loan with the money that he saves from not having to continually buy pairs of cheaper boots. Many poor people still have credit cards, and even the ones who don't can often trade favors or get loans from relatives.
And even the response "they should save up for the boots" isn't obviously wrong. For obvious reasons it's hard for poor people to save, but how often is it so hard that something like this isn't possible?
4 years ago by ketzo
Okay, the quote might not be literally true for boots (or many consumer goods) in 2021, but it's a good intuitive explanation of why it's quote-unquote "expensive to be poor," which is absolutely a meaningful and important idea to understand.
4 years ago by thehappypm
I know this is fiction, but is it really possible to have boots that last 10 years?
4 years ago by clifdweller
a decent pair of redwing boots will run $200-300 and last 18-24 months in a job walking daily before needing a resole ~150 that can be done 2-3 times. mine that I wear a couple times a week I got 18 years ago and have had to do a $50 re-heel of them is it. giving them 48 hrs to dry after wearing really extends the life of the leather
4 years ago by handrous
Also have some a few pair of Redwings Heritage boots. First real-leather shoes I bought were some Iron Rangers. I wore them as my main shoes for the first year I had them, nearly every day. Wore the absolute hell out of them. They still come out many times a year, and I treat them as work boots, so they get things dropped on them, I sit on the floor and crush them side-down for long stretches, et c. I also wore them up a couple mountain trails in the Appalachians maybe three years back, one a pretty damn long and high-elevation-change trail (do not do this, they are heavy as fuck compared to any modern hiking boot or, especially, shoe, it was a very bad idea) which beat them up plenty.
"Camp mocs", chukkas, and loafers have replaced them for everyday wear, for me, but that first pair of IRs still see some of my hardest-wearing days, probably 20-30 days a year.
Given the rate of wear for the ~2 years when I wore them very heavily, I'd say I could have gotten 5-8 years without babying them a bit (with a re-soling around year 4, probably). With my current usage pattern I expect they'll last about 20, with a re-soling at some point. If a person used shitty work boots for the really rough days to avoid abusing the expensive boots, and maybe kept some purpose-specific shoes for things like snow, heavy rainy weather (duck boots in both cases, perhaps), or hiking (god, just get a modern hiking shoe or boot, leather shoes are so heavy), 10 years of ~50%-of-days wear is very possible out of that boot style, I'd say. That may even be on the low side.
4 years ago by thehappypm
Thanks for sharing!
If you just bought cheap Walmart boots, you'd probably be spending $50 per pair, but need 2 pairs a year (maybe even more, but you're not putting a huge amount of wear and tear), call it $100/year. Over 18 years that's $1800!
4 years ago by inetknght
In 2010, I lived in Houston and worked at an ice rink (which are opposite climates especially when walking on the ice -- so theoretically hard on any footware). I bought a pair of boots from Academy which cost $80. Those boots lasted until about 6 months ago when the center of the bottom of the rubber split.
Yes it's absolutely possible for well-built footwear to last a long time.
4 years ago by odiroot
Probably, if you take good care of them and most importantly avoid wearing them every single day. Leather shoes need resting periods.
4 years ago by asguy
Iâve had that happen. I burn through heels, and need a resole every 3 or so, depending on use. Also a secret weapon is shoe trees. They keep away funk, and also seem to help the shoe last longer.
4 years ago by lossolo
There is a saying that only rich can afford to save on things
4 years ago by helsinkiandrew
Good article and discussion about the economics of these "Leeches of the poor":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27650477
TLDR: The products in Dollar Stores aren't 'cheap' in the sense that they cost less than other stores per unit - its just that they're (mostly) packaged into smaller units that people living paycheck to paycheck can afford.
4 years ago by pasttense01
Note the other stores mentioned: Walmart, Target and Costco--all discount stores. When you compare prices to convenience stores or drug stores the Dollar Stores are much cheaper.
And when you look at Walmart, Target and Costco remember time is money. And it takes significantly longer to shop at Walmart, Target and Costco (the long walks to and from your car, the long walk in the store itself, the waits at the cashiers).
4 years ago by lotsofpulp
How often are people going to Walmart/Target/Costco that walking time is a material factor?
I make weekly Costco runs and my total time car door back to car door is 15 minutes or less. I just order for pickup at Target, but even if I had to find the item, I can just see what aisle the product is in in the app and grab it and go within 10 minutes easy.
On the other hand, Dollar Tree or Dollar General is probably only budgeting 1 person for the staff, maybe 2 and so there is at most 1 register open 90% of the time. So you have a high probability of spending minutes just waiting in the checkout line. At Walmart/Target/Costco, you have self checkout and at Costco you have super fast staff at checkout with many lines open such that the lines are always moving quickly.
4 years ago by massysett
There's absolutely a difference. Going to Costco is a monumental hassle compared to Dollar General. They have few locations so for most people it's a farther drive. There's a line of cars snaking around the place waiting to buy gas. The parking lot is huge and I have to walk through it. Once inside, I have to pass the giant-screen TVs and half a warehouse of rarely-purchased items before I get to the food. All the food is in huge units. Often the lines at checkout are extremely long, and then there's another line to have my receipt checked before I get out. Then I have to load the stuff into my car - they don't bag it. Oh - and I paid a membership fee to experience all this!
Dollar General has many multiples more locations, and I can park right in front of the door. I'm in Costco every week and it's fine but yes, that walking time combined with everything else is definitely a factor.
4 years ago by mlac
Iâd say itâs less about âtime is moneyâ and more about âI can afford 100 diapers with this weekâs pay check at 25 cents a diaperâ and use my entire $25 budget if I go to Walmart, or âI can afford 25 diapers at 50 cents a piece and spend the remaining $12.50 on food - that will get me through this weekâ if I go to dollar general.
Thatâs literally the definition of living pay check to pay check - oneâs outlook only cares about the next week or two, because you have to make trade offs between food, clothing, shelter, and essentials.
4 years ago by ashtonkem
Costco isnât usually considered a discount store, itâs usually classified as a âWarehouse Clubâ.
4 years ago by armchairhacker
Is Target a discount store? Itâs not Whole Foods, but I always heard it was a high-end Walmart. Costco is also known for really good quality, though the prices are still cheap.
4 years ago by paulpauper
It's a bad deal, marketed to ppl who either cannot do math or afford larger quantities
4 years ago by robotresearcher
Do you buy your toilet paper by the palette direct from the manufacturer?
Everybody trades off the unit size, handling costs and cash flow when buying goods.
4 years ago by maxlybbert
Absolutely. When I do my grocery shopping, I occasionally think about how I could get a better deal on something at Costco, but I either donât have the space or wouldnât eat it fast enough.
The âtheyâre paying more per-unit because theyâre buying smaller packagesâ crowd seems to realize this, but they think that the size packages they buy are the correct size, and anybody buying something smaller is being exploited.
4 years ago by ashtonkem
Always bought ours from Costco in fairly large units, even when we lived in a smaller apartment.
4 years ago by shadilay
I wish I could have bought a pallet of toilet paper in early 2020.
4 years ago by MisterSandman
Not really. I use dollar stores for junk stuff. I'll finish a bag of Oreos in a day, regardless of how much stuff is in it. If it's cheaper and smaller proportionally, whatever.
4 years ago by the-dude
If I am not mistaken this strategy is used by large multinationals in developing countries.
For example, Unilever selling the same washing powder in India, just in miniscule packages.
4 years ago by hogFeast
The reason smaller stuff is slightly more expensive is shipping costs. Compare two identical products in any store, the larger one will be cheaper, the smaller one will be more expensive, and this scales with weight.
TLDR: people who have never worked in retail, don't understand retail.
Also, saying that these stores are more expensive is crazy if you actually lived at a time when these stores didn't exist. These stores grew because production moved offshore for many products, and retailers took all that profit to their bottom-line (and the five layers of distributors). A lot of these chains cut this out and returned that profit to the consumer. Ofc, the product composition of each store is different (the ones with more FMCG do more optimisation of store size, range of products)...but yes, it turns out people will complain about lower prices...loudly (I have seen this in almost every country where similar formats exist, the loudness of the people complaining about low prices outweighs everything else).
4 years ago by pao
I love the "invasive species" analogy, but it's just colorful BS.
> This follows two decades in which Walmartâs super-charged growth left small-town retail in shambles. By building massive, oversized supercenters in larger towns, Walmart found it could attract customers from a wide radius. Smaller towns in the vicinity often suffered the brunt of its impact as their Main Street retailers weakened and, in many cases, closed. > Today the dollar chains are capitalizing on these conditions, much like an invasive species advancing on a compromised ecosystem.
Shouldn't it be harder to open a dollar store now that there's both an independent grocer and a Walmart? Who knows? Without facts, it's just whatever narrative supports the author's worldview.
I do believe in food deserts. But the simpler explanation is that fresh produce is more expensive than processed food, and stores specializing in expensive things don't do well in poor areas.
4 years ago by ranrotx
Fresh food isnât just more expensive, but itâs also harder to handle and stock. Processed food comes in neat packaging that can be unit priced, and kept frozen or shelf-stable for long period of time.
4 years ago by hellotomyrars
A brand new Dollar General opened up in my town a few weeks ago. They are much cheaper than the two other local outlets on anything that they cross over on (frozen foods basically). Prices in my local area are very high and it is not an economically prosperous area to begin with.
I have visited a few times and while there are a few things it would make more sense to purchase there than locally, every other checkout interaction was truly awful. It isn't a big deal really, and the younger staff there clearly don't have much retail/working experience. But I'd rather not have to waste several minutes on what should be an in-and-out trying to get the cashier to understand that I should be getting substantially more back in change than she is trying to give me.
Ultimately I don't actually do much grocery shopping locally either way, because the prices are so high that it makes more sense for me to go 40 miles to Costco/Wal-Mart or about the same distance in the other direction to the Commissary on an AFB once a month.
I'd be okay paying a little more to support the local businesses, but most things are selling for double or more locally, and that is a non-trivial markup for me. So I mostly stock up on perishables locally in between big grocery runs.
4 years ago by mc32
It looks like a couple of things going on:
1. We have more people without much disposable income (which is composed of two populations: poor immigrants with few marketable skills, and two, poor Americans left behind due to shipping MFG overseas --going on for a while, jump-started by MFN status in the 90s).
2. People want cheap stuff. It's unfortunate. It means more disposable crap going into the landfill. Save up and buy something that will last. (unfortunately ads don't contribute to model behavior here)
3. Overseas there have always been these cheap goods stores (100-goods stores in East Asia (çžč˛¨ĺ Źĺ¸)), we're just late to the party --however in Asia these popped up because people didn't initially have disposable income as their economies evolved after ours. They are on the upswing, we're on the down.
4 years ago by mumblemumble
To your #3 - in my (US) city there have always been those cheap goods stores. There was one in the (2000 person) town I grew up in, too. The big change I'm seeing is that the independent, mom-and-pop ones are being displaced by major chains.
4 years ago by zhdc1
> 1. We have more people without much disposable income
In absolute terms, or just on average? This may be the case simply because the US population went from 250 to 320 million people over that time, but household disposal income is up considerably as well.
An alternative answer may be that Dollar stores have very low franchise fees (~$50K, from one site I looked at) and low inventory costs. This, along with cheap commercial rent, makes it an attractive option for non-tech people who want to start a retail business but don't have a lot of money saved up.
4 years ago by RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Save up and buy something that will last.
Unfortunately, just because somethings costs more doesnât mean it will last more. Maybe in the past there were brands that prides themselves on durability, but now most of the stuff seems not to really consider durability and longevity, and the financially smart move might just be to buy the cheapest thing that works and plan on replacing it when it breaks.
4 years ago by mc32
There is something to that. But consider household tools like Craftsman (had lifetime warranty). Now Craftsman is cheaply made with poor metallurgy and has a limited warranty. People will buy that at the HomeDepot. Sure, you can buy more reliable brands, but most people like you say won't know which ones to buy since many have been shipped overseas.
Furniture is now disposable. Clothing is disposable (even if you didn't mind fashion, it will end tattered after a couple of seasons. You can still buy excellent clothing, it just costs 5x.
4 years ago by moriarty-s3a
This isn't new and your example is a good one. Craftsman tools have always been cheaply made with poor metallurgy. They got by with the lifetime warranty because they marketed themselves at consumers who don't rely on their tools and don't use them very often. At least as far back as the 1950s and 1960s, people whose job depended on their tools wouldn't touch Craftsman.
4 years ago by paulpauper
iphones are pretty expensive and those go in landfills too
Same as 2008. a lot of ppl left behind in recovery, which benefits Walmart and dollar stores.
4 years ago by ravila4
I am always looking for ways to live frugally, and I think dollar stores have their niche, and there is good reason for their success.
In my experience, they are one of the best options for buying budget non-food items at low volumes where quality is not the most important factor. Things like cleaning products, office supplies, arts and crafts supplies, batteries, deodorant, candles, even common tools and repair equipment.
The reason is that if I want to save on many of this items, I would need to buy in bulk at a large store like Costco, or order on Amazon - at a greater volume than I need, and at a steeper price. (e.g. batteries, pens, superglue, oven cleaner, drywall patcher,rope etc..)
Not everything you use needs to be of premium quality, and these are the kind of items that large department stores and large online retailers have trouble competing against when selling at low volumes.
Now when it comes to food, there are better cheap ways to help undeserved communities. Large department stores waste a lot of good produce because it is close to their expiration date. Where I live, a couple of grocery stores specialize on selling this type of produce at a discount.
4 years ago by undefined
4 years ago by MattGaiser
Retail makes so little sense now for anything that isnât very cheap.
Otherwise you can just ship it from Amazon, Instacart, or a speciality store.
4 years ago by ybean
That is an incredibly privileged response to something like this. No one who is living in poverty or near the edge of poverty can even consider the additional cost associated with shipping or delivery, let alone on a weekly basis for core staples.
Reasonably priced fresh food access within walking distance should be a basic right. However, the people who need this most are those who are underserved.
4 years ago by MattGaiser
But thatâs my point. The case for retail increasingly only makes sense if a few extra dollars here and there matter to you and you need the savings it can provide.
So it makes sense that any increase in retail would be meant to serve that population.
4 years ago by ybean
Thanks for clarifying.
I guess the point left to further discussion would be whether or not these stores truly server that population.
They clearly found a gap and a solid business model (for now) but is it a success from capitalism is concerned? or humanitarianism is concerned? I'd say the former and maybe a bandaid for the latter in some regions.
Interesting to watch the changes unfold.
4 years ago by jstummbillig
They specifically pointed out pricing as the relevant factorâŚ
4 years ago by fidesomnes
"That is an incredibly privileged response to something like this."
OH MY GOD. HOW DARE YOU SOLVE THE CHEAP DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS, THAT IS A HATE CRIME.
"Reasonably priced fresh food access within walking distance should be a basic right."
You hear that fascists? The goalpost is now moved so that you are violating peoples rights if they cannot walk to buy your reasonably priced fresh food, a "basic" right(!).
4 years ago by tines
Good point; it's not (or, may not be) that more dollar stores are opening, it's that fewer other stores are opening.
4 years ago by mnd999
The natural conclusion of this is no retail at all, no malls and high streets reduced to cafes, hair salons and betting shops (where thatâs legal). All retail goes through 2 or 3 big online suppliers with cavernous warehouses that deliver daily in vans or at a premium within the hours via bike or drone.
This sounds more dystopian than utopian to me.
4 years ago by tomjen3
Why?
Repurpursing the enormous waste of land that does no longer have commercial value into cafes, hair salons, take away places and whatever else seems a more diverse, vibrant place. It also means that if you have some creative use for commercial real-estate you are likely to be charged a lower rent.
4 years ago by mnd999
I disagree, I think theyâll be mostly empty places, or converted into poor quality housing.
The takeaways will also disappear, why do you need a shopfront when everything is delivered on a moped via an app.
4 years ago by lotsofpulp
AKA efficiency.
4 years ago by Joeri
Dollar stores are not cheap though, when you look at price per quantity they're usually more expensive.
Daily digest email
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.