Hi all,
I just stopped in -- I've not been following this thread. But I do want to suggest that the thread should focus on the relative merits of buying at Guitar Center and should avoid the larger topics of the political and economic ramifications of where one shops. That's certainly a worthwhile topic for another board but not for Guitar Noise. The rules for this forum exclude those discussions.
That's my friendly moderator warning.
Thanks.
Well we all shine on--like the moon and the stars and the sun.
-- John Lennon
Arjen
let me help you out here. ColoradoFender bender asked if someone had ever shopped at a bunch of big chain stores Lowe's, Walmart etc. and King said no.
Just as a point of accuracy, I said I don't shop there, not that I have never made a purchase there or that I have not used those stores as my showroom from time to time.
To me, "shop[ping] there" implies a repeated pattern activity of regularly entering such stores and making purchases there.
. . . which would lead me to beleive his point of view might be a little anti-Big corporation and as such I would expect him to defend small mom and pop shops which I think he was.
I'm anti-heartless big business who have forgotten they are part of a larger society. But not anti-big business. I work for a very large financial company that is international in scope. We've also been named as one of the most ethical corporations in the world.
I have no problem with a company being large.
As for small shops somehow employing more people than big corporations as fact well show me the data that supports this fact. Not just your personal analysis of the situation.
Per unit sale, small shops employee more people than large stores. Go look at the sales volume in gross dollars for two stores, one a small retailer and another a large box store, and then do some division.
I'm not going to argue about anything else cuz I really don't care it's really the way slejhamer described some are good some aren't but there's no way to generalize that all big corporations are bad and all small mom and pop shops are somehow inherently good, that's just not correct.
I agree. However, a fairly large number of the big box stores are in fact engaged in activities that are direclty harmfull to local economies. That number is a disproportionately large percentage of such companies compared to the number of smaller "mom & pop" type stores engaged in such activiites. For one thing, it's a heck of a lot harder for a small store to have the economic power to damage local economies to any degree.
It's survival of the fittest if a small shop does a good job at something they'll make it, if not oh well, they'll get taken over by another GC, it's called free market capitalism.
Survival of the fittest is a good sound bite, but is ultimately wrong. We have structured the laws to favor the big companies and to punish the small companies.
By granting competitive advantages in the force of laws, tax regulations, and the like to large companies, those companies survive over small companies. However, those competitive advantages are not inherent in the behavior, structure, or operations of the companies per se.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
Arjen,
I really really don't want to beat a dead horse here but I'm not even sure what your talking about.
King said he never bought anything from the biggest chain stores in the US. Stores that you can't drive more than a mile or two in any city in America and find. Those are words he wrote. All I said (and I should have qualified my response if that helps) is that I beleive that would put him in a small minority of people. It's almost impossible for me to phathom how someone living in the US could not have bought something from one of those stores sometime in their life because I don't know even one person who hasn't. (of course me not knowing anyone doesn't mean anything other than what I said I don't know anyone) but to me that means there aren't too many of those people. Hence that would put him in the minority. And you are correct I made an assumption based on that statement that he might have an issue with or didn't like buying from large chains...and I think it's a valid assumption..and by the way I think I'm allowed to make any assumption I want especially since his response was just a No. Since King didn't say why he didn't buy from large chains only that he didn't I think my assumption is valid until I hear differently. Maybe he just has an issue with the ones listed I don't know, lacking more information means I have to assume some things.
On the other hand I made a statement that I could argue (I didn't say it was fact) that large chains employ more people than small mom and pops and you said it was Nonsense if I remember correctly and that in fact the opposite was actually a fact.
Yet when asked to produce evidence you don't have time...I'll go out on a limb and make another assumption...you don't have any or there isn't any data to support your statement of so called fact. And I wouldn't want you to waste your time looking cuz I don't care anyway.
I never questioned King's logic the only other thing I said was it was ALL about shareholders which probably was a little bit of an overstatement but I think it's alittle more than somewhat as he stated but again just my opinion.
It doesn't matter what you assume or believe about King's inner state of mind, or whether you believe he has a anti-big corporation mentality. What matters are his statements and what you can bring in against them. They are logically correct as far as I can see, and that has nothing to do with where he shops or doesn't shop. It's hard enough to have an acceptable discussion without having to guess about what people think or don't think, espescially on the internet.
His statement was No...since he didn't elaborate I had to make assumptions and it wasn't a matter of bringing anything against him all I said was that I thought that put him in a minority.
Set up a poll here for all US members and ask how many have never bought anything in one of those large chains. If the majority of people and I'll say at least 90% (given a large enough sampling size 100+) say they haven't then I will stand corrected and never post on this site again.
By the way I don't remember arguing about anything, I just mentioned I could take the opposite view on an argument about large corporations employing more people, I didn't mean I had any intend on doing so I mentioned it because there are always two sides of every argument and sometimes I do enjoy a good debate.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
King,
Excellent that cleared up alot of "assumptions" I had made about what you said. It just kind of blew my mind that you never bought from one of those stores I found that incredible.
As for everything else you wrote I don't have any problems with that although I still find it hard to beleive that mom and pop shops employ more people. To me that could only be true if there were nothing but mom and pop shops. Could a mom and pop shop build a car? Techincally maybe, and yes maybe if you had hundreds of these making cars but that's not reality.
I was thinking more in terms of actual number of employees not a statistical calculation based on per unit sales and such I was talking raw numbers of employees only. Calculations like the one you mentioned just show less efficient a mom and pop shop is which usually translates into higher cost for the guitar I want to buy.
Anyway, I didn't mean to really argue about anything you said other than based on your No answer I found it unbeleivable.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
I think we're done here.
Topic Locked
-Laz
