Why suburbs are bad for America

codeyeti · 10-18-2009, 10:33 PM

The suburban lifestyle is taken for granted in our culture, but I believe it's actually really inefficient on many levels.

1. Utilities Distribution and infrastructure
Suburbs are terrible for utilities distribution. With everyone so spread out, it takes a lot more work to distribute power and water and maintain infrastructure. In addition to needing more infrastructure to deliver the services (and correspondingly more work to maintain), the power transmission is a lot lossier since its being transmitted over a longer distance and that means we're using up more energy than we would otherwise.

2. Transportation
Cars are a very inefficient form of transportation and it is not sustainable. Suburbs make it difficult to provide public transportation so instead we rely on cars. The problem is that cars a.) use up more resources (and generate more pollution) than public transportation and b.) require roads which cannot be made wider indefinitely. Trains and buses are more efficient than cars in every way, but suburbs make it impossible to provide efficient public transportation.

3. Quality of life in the City
Despite the fact the the majority of wealth is generated in cities, the city itself will see little of that money since people living in the suburbs will pay taxes to their suburb rather than the city where the wealth was generated. The suburb will use this money to keep paying to maintain the inefficient infrastructure that make it possible to maintain suburban lifestyle. This means a lot of wasted tax money that could go towards improving everyone's quality of life in the city and developing public transportation.

What do you guys think about suburbs? I feel like America is unique in this suburban lifestyle, and I'm not sure how we ended up like this.

trustno1 · 10-18-2009, 11:15 PM

Be patient...

In just a few more years, after Wal-Mart has completed this current stage of taking over the USA, closing the two "small" stores and forcing those customers to all support the new Super Wal-Mart that is built half-way between the two closed stores, we will be "set". They will just have all of the mass transit trains, subways, etc lead directly to Wal-Mart, since it will be the only place left in America to shop.

Someday we will be buying houses at wal-mart and not have to worry about all those problems you mentioned. Unless of course, you do not like the color blue...lol

skybear · 11-07-2009, 09:48 AM

To your point, urban environments are averse to the Wal-Mart takeover providing better opportunity for small businesses to flourish. When we live shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors and actually pass them on the street (instead of just driving by in our cars, isolated) we build relationships and community. Small businesses depend on the type of community corporations like Wal-Mart destroy.

codeyeti · 11-08-2009, 12:33 AM

I really don't see Walmart as the evil corporation everyone portrays it as. Times change, and the small-town family-run businesses of our youth are simply not feasible anymore. Walmart has a better business model and I don't feel any moral obligation to shop at more expensive, smaller stores just because "that's how it used to be".

trustno1 · 11-09-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeyeti

I really don't see Walmart as the evil corporation everyone portrays it as. Times change, and the small-town family-run businesses of our youth are simply not feasible anymore. Walmart has a better business model and I don't feel any moral obligation to shop at more expensive, smaller stores just because "that's how it used to be".

There are a few informed sources which seem to favor a different viewpoint than the opinion you have expressed. I happen to be one of them.
You might want to have a look at this (a PBS series aired on television)…

PBS FrontLine video series on Wal-Mart (viewable online)
Is Wal-Mart good for America?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/

regarding your opinion on small business…
Interview with SBA Administrator Karen Mills,
http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/banking-lending-credit-services/12608206-1.html

Intuit data on future of small business
http://http-download.intuit.com/http.intuit/CMO/intuit/futureofsmallbusiness/SR-1037B_intuit_tech_trends.pdf

www.intuit.com/futureofsmallbusiness.

SBA (small business administration) for reference data…
http://www.sba.gov/

codeyeti · 11-10-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustno1

There are a few informed sources which seem to favor a different viewpoint than the opinion you have expressed. I happen to be one of them.
You might want to have a look at this (a PBS series aired on television)…

PBS FrontLine video series on Wal-Mart (viewable online)
Is Wal-Mart good for America?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/

regarding your opinion on small business…
Interview with SBA Administrator Karen Mills,
http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/banking-lending-credit-services/12608206-1.html

Intuit data on future of small business
http://http-download.intuit.com/http.intuit/CMO/intuit/futureofsmallbusiness/SR-1037B_intuit_tech_trends.pdf

www.intuit.com/futureofsmallbusiness.

SBA (small business administration) for reference data…
http://www.sba.gov/

Could you summarize the main points? As far as I can tell (without actually watching the documentary) the arguments seems like:

1. Walmart outsources manufacturing to China
2. Small businesses can't compete with Walmart

The first point is really a question of Industrialized countries not being able to compete on manufacturing jobs with developing countries because cost of labor is higher. This is just the times changing - if you're a developed nation don't try to compete on manufacturing. Stick to your strengths - compete in areas that require an educated workforce. Globalization is a very good thing - it develops undeveloped nations economically. That's a lot more than any first-world charity money has ever done.

The second point comes down to walmart being a better business model than traditional "all american" small businesses. Sorry, but it's true - they sell the same stuff cheaper. They don't know your name but that's not why you shop there anyway.

kaitlyn142 · 11-10-2009, 02:17 PM

Actually, walmart doesn't sell the same products. In order to stay profitable selling at the deep discounts walmart demands, many manufacturers have a special "just for walmart" line. These are substandard quality items not sold elsewhere.

codeyeti · 11-10-2009, 03:41 PM

Point taken, but in all honesty, if the American consumer prefers less expensive, substandard-quality products, is that really Walmart's fault? There's a market for cheap, low-quality stuff and Walmart fills that niche.

Regardless, there are a lot of products that Walmart sells that are identical to what is sold everywhere else too.

kaitlyn142 · 11-11-2009, 08:45 AM

But we are arguing what's good for America. How is a company that keeps people poor by systematically taking out their competition, paying employees less, denying healthcare coverage, and encouraging overspending (as we all know that generally, you pay more overall for a cheap product you replace 10 times than an expensive item that lasts for 25 years) good for America? Take the ad campaign about the cat loving their food less because it came from WalMart. People will think they are being smart getting the cheaper food, when in reality, the food has more fillers than what you would buy at a pet specialty store (okay, so all the petfood brands at Walmart are brands I wouldn't feed my cat anyway, but you get the point). This leads to increased health problems, spending more on food because it is less nutrient-dense so the pet eats more, and a shorter pet lifespan. This is especially true as WalMart actively targets a consumer base that is unable or unwilling to do the necessary research. Just because I want to eat pizza for dinner every night doesn't mean I should. It's not good for me.

trustno1 · 11-12-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeyeti

Point taken, but in all honesty, if the American consumer prefers less expensive, substandard-quality products, is that really Walmart's fault? There's a market for cheap, low-quality stuff and Walmart fills that niche.

Regardless, there are a lot of products that Walmart sells that are identical to what is sold everywhere else too.

It is the "collateral damage" they cause in the process that is the issue. They are the "ringmasters" of the Circus. They are "ruthless" in their mastery of Marketing and expansion of their visegrip on the retail industry. Their "mom-n-pop" image pioneered by Sam Walton is just a smoke and mirror reflection of the genuine values of Sam and his red pick-up truck.

They do contribute alot to "society" and employ the "otherwise unemployable" folks. At least they smile when they strangle you. More than you can say for the tobacco lords...

But, hey, it's business, not an ice cream social...lol. If you want to study a real monster...take a close look at the Tobacco Manufacturers... "it is what it is".

10-18-2009, 10:33 PM	#1
codeyeti Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 31 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Reputation: (12)	Why suburbs are bad for America The suburban lifestyle is taken for granted in our culture, but I believe it's actually really inefficient on many levels. 1. Utilities Distribution and infrastructure Suburbs are terrible for utilities distribution. With everyone so spread out, it takes a lot more work to distribute power and water and maintain infrastructure. In addition to needing more infrastructure to deliver the services (and correspondingly more work to maintain), the power transmission is a lot lossier since its being transmitted over a longer distance and that means we're using up more energy than we would otherwise. 2. Transportation Cars are a very inefficient form of transportation and it is not sustainable. Suburbs make it difficult to provide public transportation so instead we rely on cars. The problem is that cars a.) use up more resources (and generate more pollution) than public transportation and b.) require roads which cannot be made wider indefinitely. Trains and buses are more efficient than cars in every way, but suburbs make it impossible to provide efficient public transportation. 3. Quality of life in the City Despite the fact the the majority of wealth is generated in cities, the city itself will see little of that money since people living in the suburbs will pay taxes to their suburb rather than the city where the wealth was generated. The suburb will use this money to keep paying to maintain the inefficient infrastructure that make it possible to maintain suburban lifestyle. This means a lot of wasted tax money that could go towards improving everyone's quality of life in the city and developing public transportation. What do you guys think about suburbs? I feel like America is unique in this suburban lifestyle, and I'm not sure how we ended up like this.

10-18-2009, 11:15 PM	#2
trustno1 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Rocky Mtns, Colorado, USA, Earth Posts: 266 Thanks: 0 Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts Reputation: (26)	Be patient... In just a few more years, after Wal-Mart has completed this current stage of taking over the USA, closing the two "small" stores and forcing those customers to all support the new Super Wal-Mart that is built half-way between the two closed stores, we will be "set". They will just have all of the mass transit trains, subways, etc lead directly to Wal-Mart, since it will be the only place left in America to shop. Someday we will be buying houses at wal-mart and not have to worry about all those problems you mentioned. Unless of course, you do not like the color blue...lol __________________ "Think Less, Act More...Life is Short"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Eye Care Center of America	dallaskid	Deals & Coupons	1	09-30-2009 07:54 PM
Any Current or Former Boys Scouts of America?	indieretailer	General Discussion	10	10-09-2008 07:57 PM

11-07-2009, 09:48 AM	#3
skybear Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Reputation: (10)	To your point, urban environments are averse to the Wal-Mart takeover providing better opportunity for small businesses to flourish. When we live shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors and actually pass them on the street (instead of just driving by in our cars, isolated) we build relationships and community. Small businesses depend on the type of community corporations like Wal-Mart destroy.

11-08-2009, 12:33 AM	#4
codeyeti Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 31 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Reputation: (12)	I really don't see Walmart as the evil corporation everyone portrays it as. Times change, and the small-town family-run businesses of our youth are simply not feasible anymore. Walmart has a better business model and I don't feel any moral obligation to shop at more expensive, smaller stores just because "that's how it used to be".

11-10-2009, 02:17 PM	#7
kaitlyn142 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 15 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Reputation: (10)	Actually, walmart doesn't sell the same products. In order to stay profitable selling at the deep discounts walmart demands, many manufacturers have a special "just for walmart" line. These are substandard quality items not sold elsewhere.

11-10-2009, 03:41 PM	#8
codeyeti Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 31 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Reputation: (12)	Point taken, but in all honesty, if the American consumer prefers less expensive, substandard-quality products, is that really Walmart's fault? There's a market for cheap, low-quality stuff and Walmart fills that niche. Regardless, there are a lot of products that Walmart sells that are identical to what is sold everywhere else too.

11-11-2009, 08:45 AM	#9
kaitlyn142 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 15 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Reputation: (10)	But we are arguing what's good for America. How is a company that keeps people poor by systematically taking out their competition, paying employees less, denying healthcare coverage, and encouraging overspending (as we all know that generally, you pay more overall for a cheap product you replace 10 times than an expensive item that lasts for 25 years) good for America? Take the ad campaign about the cat loving their food less because it came from WalMart. People will think they are being smart getting the cheaper food, when in reality, the food has more fillers than what you would buy at a pet specialty store (okay, so all the petfood brands at Walmart are brands I wouldn't feed my cat anyway, but you get the point). This leads to increased health problems, spending more on food because it is less nutrient-dense so the pet eats more, and a shorter pet lifespan. This is especially true as WalMart actively targets a consumer base that is unable or unwilling to do the necessary research. Just because I want to eat pizza for dinner every night doesn't mean I should. It's not good for me.