• gila@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s an expected tradeoff of operating an essential service is the point. It’s not as though their margin is that slim by mistake, or out of goodwill, or bad business sense. It’s meant to lead to the situation where we shop at Walmart not by choice, but in lieu of other options.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not really — it’s because nearly everything they sell is highly fungible, and they compete on price. Nobody is willing to pay a premium to shop at Walmart. Twenty years ago you’d have been correct, but they’ve pretty much saturated the market at this point. They’re trying to find profitability in automation rather than adding tons of new stores.

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m really meaning the lack of option not to consume fast-moving consumer goods, rather than the option to pay a premium for them elsewhere. When their market position is similar to like an outlet for government rations except for private profit, their net is essentially what was skimmed off the top of free enterprise. 2.66% is just the current maximum amount that is justifiably worth without doing societal harm

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s true, but what you describe is pretty much the end state of big-box retail. Amazon is essentially the same, if we exclude AWS. It’s all a race to the bottom. The solution, as always, is to buy direct from smaller producers if possible.