Darwinian

[dick]

How's this...

I read threads about Mesa Airlines, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, whatever... coming and taking out other businesses...

Isn't this what capitalism is all about?

People weep and moan about how stores, and life and times are being taken away by "big business," but aren't these stores doing what they're supposed to do - make money?

Why is this a bad thing? And in what way?

Is being successful a terrible thing? If so, why?

Should people and "small business" not aspire to go out and ultimately be as big as they can possibly be?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Darwinian

Should people and "small business" not aspire to go out and ultimately be as big as they can possibly be?

You ask many questions, but the only one I want to address here is the last one. I can comfortably say "no."

In many cases where I've been involved with "small" businesses, it has been a goal to stay small - to serve only enough of a customer base to guarantee that each customer gets a personalized level of attention, or to make sure that we do not lose sight of the individual quality of the product; not necessarily to make the most money possible, or to become famous for our product, or to keep our costs/prices lower than anybody else's.

I appreciate that there are artisans, craftspeople, business owners who WANT to keep things on a small scale - that they only manufacture limited batches of cheese or wine or ale, books of poetry, works of art, audio recordings, etc.

There's plenty of big business to go around in all fields, and that's fine for those who have that as a goal - and I shop at those stores and buy from those businesses all the time. But that doesn't mean that everybody wants to take that path, and I also support the ones who want to keep it little. And if they consider themselves successful at that level, who am I to contradict them?

[blueyecicle]

Re: Darwinian

Should people and "small business" not aspire to go out and ultimately be as big as they can possibly be?

It is not for anyone to say what they should or should not do.
If they choose to then yes! If they want to remain small than GREAT!
That's the beauty of freedom. There is room for both types of business.

From my experience running my own business, I prefer to stay small. I do not have the time to develop, then oversee and run a large company. Staying small fits into my family life and allows me the freedom of time.
One CHOOSES their own priorities. In the end you are the only one who has to live with them!

[Miulang]

Re: Darwinian

I've always contended that if corporations weren't so greedy (i.e., the big corporations), there would be enough business to keep everyone afloat. Large publicly held corporations (the ones with the shareholders) are the ones who have to justify their business methods by the bottom line: if they don't make a profit, then their shareholders get grumpy. Large corporations rarely care about their customers in the way that small businesses can and must do to survive.

Having worked in several billion dollar organizations (both in the for profit and not for profit sectors) plus some very small organizations, my observation is that the larger your company grows, the farther away from your customer you become. Some consumers don't care about customer service, so when given a choice between paying a little more for extra attention v. a lower price, they will choose the lower price. But in that case, the old axiom "You get what you pay for" definitely rings true.

For that reason, whenever I can, I prefer to patronize local small businesses, and, failing that, my next choice is locally based or regional chains and finally the big boxes (Costco and Target regularly, but rarely---like maybe once a year---Walmart, and only because we usually get a WM giftcard from a family member). This country was built by small business. The majority of small businesses today are owned by women.

Large, multinational corporations are insidious. They prey upon the people of the Third World. They take American jobs and send them overseas where it costs less to manufacture their products. They dump drugs and foods that are deemed unsafe in this country upon the people of the developing world.

NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO are shafting the workers in the United States. Because of the fair trade agreements now in place, many of our large multinational corporations send their money overseas; many foreign companies now own sizeable chunks of our American corporations. The profits rarely trickle down to benefit the workers. Our dollar has become so devalued that if China (to whom we owe lots of money) and other countries that hold a lot of our paper decided to dump our dollars and go to the Euro as a standard, we in this country would suffer from a recession so severe that it might surpass the Great Depression.

The Carlyle's, WalMarts, and Nestle's of the world could care less about who they're hurting or why...so long as the money keeps rolling in and their shareholders and owners are happy.

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Darwinian

A small business can be identified by it's employee base...I believe as much as 300 employed in a single company can be considered a small business. A small business can also be a corporation. As an LLC, The Gas Company is considered a small business.

But Dick has a point. You don't go into business to stay small. As your customer base expands so does your operations. Look at L&L Drive Inn? Look at McDonald's.

Look at Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for that matter. Both of these men started as the underdogs against a common adversary...IBM. Now both mock IBM.

The one silver lining in our free enterprise economy is that both small and large businesses can operate to fill a niche market. And both are.

When Home Depot came into the Hilo market, it was assumed that it would bury HPM. It didn't. When Home Depot came into the Honolulu market, it was assumed that it would bury City Mill. It didn't.

Now here in Hilo if Costco were to build there, chances are it may bury Cost U Less. But with the customer loyalty stigma here in Hilo, I'm almost sure I'll be wrong.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Darwinian

You don't go into business to stay small.

My point is that you cannot state this as a generality; some businesses have every intention of staying small. Not everybody who turns their home into a bed & breakfast wants to eventually run a huge lodging chain.

[joshuatree]

Re: Darwinian

You can choose to stay small if you can afford to stay small.

[blueyecicle]

Re: Darwinian

If you have a specialty business like a bed and breakfast then you can stay small. I think it also depends on how much the community supports you. Eugene is very small business friendly but they also lose small business because towns nearby allow the bigger business in. HOWEVER...the locals do buy a majority of most items from locals small business. So the community itself chooses to shop small.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Darwinian

the answer can be quantified in an algebraic slope.

Service as a function of convenience.

Location as a function of time.

Selection as a function of price.

Competent and knowledgeable vendors. Consumers satisfied with getting what they want.

The discussion is more than about capitalism--it is about economics. Get plenty variables.

[Adri]

Re: Darwinian

I deliberately decided to keep my business small so that I could still have time to do other things on the side and concentrate on trying to maintain the quality of my work. I try to earn enough to support myself, of course but a more experienced colleage told me when I was starting out that business is like a beast. The bigger it gets, the more difficult and expensive it gets to maintain (in general) and before you know it, you're slaving away to feed the beast. For my own business, I agree with him. But I do respect people with the drive to go as far as they can go in business.

I recently read a book about Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. It made an interesting point that he started off running a small business (a 5 and dime shop in a small town) and deliberately sought small towns as locations for his businesses as his company grew because he felt it helped the small towns by providing reasonably priced goods and more jobs. He made a decision to make his company as big and as strong as it could be but saw himself as a small business helping small communities for quite a while and it became a paradox for his company to become a big business that was seen as harming smaller companies, one with which he was very uncomfortable.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Darwinian

I recently read a book about Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. It made an interesting point that he ... deliberately sought small towns as locations for his businesses as his company grew because he felt it helped the small towns ... and it became a paradox for his company to become a big business that was seen as harming smaller companies, one with which he was very uncomfortable.

Awww...he was "uncomfortable," was he? Gosh, almost brings a lump to your throat, as you think about the "discomfort" of one of the poor li'l RICHEST MEN on the f-ing planet!!!

[joshuatree]

Re: Darwinian

Awww...he was "uncomfortable," was he? Gosh, almost brings a lump to your throat, as you think about the "discomfort" of one of the poor li'l RICHEST MEN on the f-ing planet!!!

Well, to be fair, we really wouldn't know how he would have ran Walmart from the 90s to present day if he was still alive. Don't think he's a saint but can't lay all of the current woes of Walmart being the 800lb gorilla on him either.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Darwinian

Well, to be fair, we really wouldn't know how he would have ran Walmart from the 90s to present day if he was still alive. Don't think he's a saint but can't lay all of the current woes of Walmart being the 800lb gorilla on him either.

Oh, but it's so easy to do so, since he's not here to defend himself. But Mal-Wart was crushing the life out of small-town businesses during the years he was alive, too; by the early '90s, they had already gone into many small Midwestern communities, killed off the independent competitors, and then pulled out of those same towns themselves, leaving residents screwed. Dead or alive, he and the monster he created get no sympathy (or business) from me.

[joshuatree]

Re: Darwinian

Oh, but it's so easy to do so, since he's not here to defend himself. But Mal-Wart was crushing the life out of small-town businesses during the years he was alive, too; by the early '90s, they had already gone into many small Midwestern communities, killed off the independent competitors, and then pulled out of those same towns themselves, leaving residents screwed. Dead or alive, he and monster he created get no sympathy (or business) from me.

True, he definitely set the path for destruction of small biz. But I wonder would Walmart be any different if he could still be calling the shots? Would employee comp be any better? Would Walmart sell over 60% of it's merchandise made outside the US?

Although at the same time, by selling lower priced goods, the purchasing power of the average American has greatly increased. So it's a conundrum sometimes.

[Palolo Joe]

Re: Darwinian

Dead or alive, he and the monster he created get no sympathy (or business) from me.

Jealousy is a bitch, isn't it?

Walton started out small and dreamt big. He was successful. Walmart doesn't need your business, because MILLIONS of other shoppers go there and spend their money.

A free market economy isn't perfect, but it sure as hell beats living in China.