Walmart - Good or Bad? (Chicago, Evanston: mortgage, credit, purchases)

[grapico]

Originally Posted by Drover

If only you had any idea what that area was like before the big-box stores went in there.

I do have an idea of it, I'd rather have it be a ghetto. Maybe if you had an idea of what Walmart and the likes make other countries look like, to pretty up our little insignificant plot of land...
I'd rather work on a ghetto and help the poor than sell out to the corporate oligarchy any day.
I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but don't assume I have "no idea" please, as if a theoretical ignorance on my part, would make me change my mind?

[Drover]

Let's see... ghetto versus economically productive development.... not a tough choice for most.

I wish I lived in a world so simple where the universe of choices was "work on a ghetto and help the poor [or] sell out to the corporate oligarchy." Here on Planet Reality, it's a little more complicated than that.

[Humboldt1]

Grapico,

Seriously, you would rather areas like Austin remain ghetto and a food desert than have Walmart come in?

Your union loyalties have blinded you to what is good for some of these neighborhoods where anything is better than the lack of commerce they have now.

That Walmart in Austin generates several hundred jobs (almost no spillover as that is a dangerous area where few chain want to be other than aldis, cvs and menards just down north ave.)

I think that other poor black areas will also benefit with walmarts coming. Poor hispanic areas are flush with groceries (cermak, el guero, carniceria jimenez, tonys, etc) and do not have food deserts like you see in Austin where leamington is the only real grocery store (I think they took over for underperforming dominicks in north lawndale as well).

I think the unions have done real damage to themselves with the black community thru efforts like the big box ordinace to keep walmart out of Chicago.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by Drover

Let's see... ghetto versus economically productive development.... not a tough choice for most.

I wish I lived in a world so simple where the universe of choices was "work on a ghetto and help the poor [or] sell out to the corporate oligarchy." Here on Planet Reality, it's a little more complicated than that.

Of course it is more complicated, that was just a simple answer. Having a "ghetto" area is not going to be solved by pushing them to leave. They are just going to be low income and out of that neighborhoods site, I guess it is okay if it is somebody elses problem?. It doesn't get rid of the issue. I also don't think, given the right policies in place, that areas necessarily remain ghetto forever. And I certainly don't think that bringing in Walmart is going to alleviate the issues.

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Grapico,

Seriously, you would rather areas like Austin remain ghetto and a food desert than have Walmart come in?

You are assuming that Walmart is going to bring it forth from being a ghetto? You are also putting words in my mouth. I would rather take other measures, besides bringing in Walmart, yes.

I don't want any areas to "remain" ghetto's, but these quick solve solutions are not the answer IMO. It just avoids the real societal problems.

[Drover]

And I'm even more certain that actually favoring ghettos and vacant land over economically productive development definitely won't alleviate the issues.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by Drover

And I'm even more certain that actually favoring ghettos and vacant land over economically productive development definitely won't alleviate the issues.

I never said vacant land, unless you mean parks, I would be all for it being parkland, no problem with that. Chicago has a comparatively low percentage of parkland vs peers as it is now in the city. Favoring a ghetto is also not what I implied, I would definitely rather work on a neighborhood, rather than bringing in "economically viable" big box stores. This in no way implies that I would rather see a place dwindle as a ghetto *forever*.

[Humboldt1]

Grapico,

I don't see Walmart or other big box stores as the cure to ghettos. The cure to ghettos is improving the existing population thru job and education. For that you have to have a willing population.

The realistic cure to ghettos such as Austin is for the existing population to leave. This is starting to happen in Austin per last census, similar to what we have seen in garfield park over the past 30 years.

You are right that forcing this population somewhere else such as the poor suburbs does not solve the problem and forces this population and its problems on others. However, this also makes things better for those still living in these neighborhoods.

Just imagine how nice Humboldt Park could be if we moved out everyone south of grand avenue or even a couple blocks south of grand? It is the existing population that is keeping Humboldt Park down. As the hispanic population continues to grow look for this to continue to change.

If the hispanic population goes down, look for Humboldt Park (not just the parts bordering austin and garfield park) to get worse.

In areas like Austin this is tough. As I have said before several of my neighbors by my building in Humboldt Park work at the Austin walmart. In 5 years of being open that store has never paid a bonus to its emplyees because employee theft remains so high. The level of customer service is perhaps the worst I have ever seen apart, though the people in line were slightly better than those at walmart in bedford park (ford heights). The cashiers are actually decent. The customers were the most ghetto of any walmart I have ever been to, including the austin one. Why they don't just wholesale hire bilingual cashiers is beyond me, but I am sure the alderman has something to do with this.

[Savoir Faire]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

The realistic cure to ghettos such as Austin is for the existing population to leave. This is starting to happen in Austin per last census, similar to what we have seen in garfield park over the past 30 years.

You are right that forcing this population somewhere else such as the poor suburbs does not solve the problem and forces this population and its problems on others. However, this also makes things better for those still living in these neighborhoods.

Just imagine how nice Humboldt Park could be if we moved out everyone south of grand avenue or even a couple blocks south of grand?

That pretty much covers most of the area. That's like saying imagine how nice Pilsen would be if you got rid of the people west of Racine. Besides, to imply that north of grand by Pulaski is not a ghetto is to be willfully ignorant.

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

The realistic cure to ghettos such as Austin is for the existing population to leave. This is starting to happen in Austin per last census, similar to what we have seen in garfield park over the past 30 years.

If the hispanic population goes down, look for Humboldt Park (not just the parts bordering austin and garfield park) to get worse.

Your post doesn't make sense. Parts of East Garfield have actually gained residents in the last 10 years. East Garfield Park has also seen a much bigger percentage change in demographics than Humboldt Park has, particularly western Humboldt Park. Numbers don't lie, but people on the internet do.

Graphic: Chicago population change - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-0220-census-follow-gfx.eps-20110218,0,5740685.graphic - broken link)

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I don't like Walmart because they're anti union and sell mostly foreign goods. But then most stores, including Target, the darling of cheapskate social liberals, are anti union and sell mostly foreign goods.

I think many people who dislike Walmart are snobs and dislike it because they hold the unfashionable middle and low income people who shop there in contempt.

I can't stand Target either, but my wife doesn't care.

I dislike Walmart as they are the standard-bearer for sweatshop-produced goods, and as the fact that they quite literally dictate prices to suppliers means they are in violation of numerous anti-trade legislation.

They get away with it due to the sweatshops/slave labor being in SE Asia.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Eh.... not really. I'm perfectly capable of sharing my opinions without telling others how they should order their personal affairs. I'm not the slightest bit interested in where you shop. You, on the other hand, are intensely interested in where I shop.

Supporting violators of labor and anti-trade law is not a "personal affair."

We've heard your opinions, and you clearly have no interest in actually learning anything about WalMart that isn't superficial.

Take an hour and read:

Walmart Watch

Then you might have some credibility. Otherwise, you're a broken record.

So got anything new to add? If not, you've said your piece, so adios.