- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trader Joe's too snazzy for one Portland neighborhood
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:07 pm to Palmetto08
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:07 pm to Palmetto08
quote:This is an embarrassment.
The Portland African American Leadership Forum sent the city a letter saying it would "remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community."
1
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:08 pm to lsu fan cw
Reading between the lines...they want Popeyes.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:10 pm to The Sad Banana
These are the same people that complain that all the convenience stores are not black owned, but when a black owns a business and runs it like a business, he's an "Uncle Tom."
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:14 pm to notiger1997
quote:
You typed think. Mike doesn't think. He just types his pre programmed responses
In all fairness, I'm not the one endorsing washing and repeating the same failed city that daddy, and grandpa thought would work but turned into undesirable areas real quick when the newness wore off because who wants to live next to a tent city?
I didn't exchange our city for a pasture so I could watch TV in the A/C.
You know, now that we brought up thinking and shite.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:16 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
In all fairness, I'm not the one endorsing washing and repeating the same failed city that daddy, and grandpa thought would work but turned into undesirable areas real quick when the newness wore off because who wants to live next to a tent city?
Baby steps. You don't go from ghetto to penthouse overnight. You take what investment you can get in downtrodden areas sometimes.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:19 pm to lsu fan cw
quote:
lsu_fan_cw
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:24 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Baby steps. You don't go from ghetto to penthouse overnight. You take what investment you can get in downtrodden areas sometimes.
Question is, what does that do to the local economy long term, as well as encouraging more local involvement in capitalism? What does it do to sell local products, goods, and services? What does it do to support the local economy compared to soak it for what it can get, and throw a little jingle at their feet and call it an economy?
Politicians use this shite to pat themselves on the back, but very little to none of it invests in the area, so is why wealth is lost, and poor areas become nothing more than a place for out of state companies to use, and leave because they have no real vested interest in its sustainability or economy, because it doesn't live there. It's nothing but a buck to them, and that's it.
And BTW, there may be none worse than TJ, as they sell only their product. PERIOD.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:29 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Question is, what does that do to the local economy long term
Jump start. Some development is better than none. Are you really pushing that?
quote:
, as well as encouraging more local involvement in capitalism?
Development of any kind is a positive. You're wanting lobster when all the people can afford is perch. Well, when you're hungry, perch is better than nothing.
quote:
What does it do to sell local products, goods, and services?
Opens up cheap retail space for prospective entrepreneurs.
quote:
What does it do to support the local economy compared to soak it for what it can get, and throw a little jingle at their feet and call it an economy
The velocity of money. Money spent in a community contributes to paid jobs, and that money is spent in the community and so on....
But of course, you can have your way and boarded up buildings with no economic activity.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:43 pm to Palmetto08
That's predictable and depressing
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:44 pm to RogerTheShrubber
It's not all are none.. Why not take some of the Tax Incentive money we spend to line the pockets of these jump start chains, and use it to encourage local entrepreneurs and banks to get on board as well?
I mean, we definitely know how to sell our cities on the cheap to people who don't live here. I'm just wondering if we could perhaps care a little more for those who actually do, and are all in here.
I mean, we definitely know how to sell our cities on the cheap to people who don't live here. I'm just wondering if we could perhaps care a little more for those who actually do, and are all in here.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:49 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
It's not all are none.. Why not take some of the Tax Incentive money we spend to line the pockets of these jump start chains, and use it to encourage local entrepreneurs and banks to get on board as well?
Are we subsidizing chains?
quote:
I mean, we definitely know how to sell our cities on the cheap to people who don't live here. I'm just wondering if we could perhaps care a little more for those who actually do, and are all in here.
People vote with their dollar. We have what people want. I suppose if every city had a dictator of culture and could plan for the plebes, it would be a different situation. We could rob from the rich to subsidize a whole lot of startups that have a high failure rate.
People have choice. Poor folks just don't have as much choice. Ghettos don't become world class dining and shopping meccas overnight.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:02 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Are we subsidizing chains?
Depending upon the area and circumstance, government definitely gives incentives. It boosts job, even if they are low paying, the numbers look good, and they get to put a feather in their cap.
quote:
People vote with their dollar.
As it should be, but when there are so few options to vote for it's not as if most places have an option but an out of state chain. It's a vicious system, and doesn't sustain local business and industry. It also sets the price and demand. The purveyors fill the demand SET by the chains, and so determine what your choices are, and even what is grown. And we think it's our idea. They hike the price of real estate and dominate our commercial areas and high profile intersections and thoroughfares. In my estimation, that is not the spirit of capitalism, as it is corporatism because it makes it so difficult to enter in to the market and compete that it discourages real capitalism on the local level. That's not the American dream IMO. That's the bankers and wealthy investors dream, or maybe the politician's dream.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:12 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
As it should be, but when there are so few options to vote for it's not as if most places have an option but an out of state chain. It's a vicious system, and doesn't sustain local business and industry
Sure it does. Particularly if they use some local sourcing and suppliers. Anything providing jobs will lead to currency circulation.
If you're arguing that local entrepreneurs are more sustainable than national chains, you probably aren't going to get an argument. Many developing areas don't have that luxury.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:20 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Sure it does. Particularly if they use some local sourcing and suppliers. Anything providing jobs will lead to currency circulation.
Almost NONE do though, and when they do it's minuscule, and that's the biggest issue.
quote:
If you're arguing that local entrepreneurs are more sustainable than national chains, you probably aren't going to get an argument. Many developing areas don't have that luxury.
Yet when their city's or area's skyline is nothing BUT chains, then it becomes a truck stop like everywhere else, and nobody has any real attachment to the area, the same that can be found anywhere and everywhere, and so people rather than feel a sense of belonging and attachment to the area just move to the new and shiny, and the place they left goes directly to hell.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:24 pm to The Sad Banana
quote:
Reading between the lines...they want Popeyes.
I could go for some Popeyes now myself...
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:30 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Sure it does. Particularly if they use some local sourcing and suppliers. Anything providing jobs will lead to currency circulation.
Almost NONE do though, and when they do it's minuscule, and that's the biggest issue.
You shitting me? Hell, Walmart displays several sections of local stuff here. SO does Costco, Fred Meyer, etc. They also hire employees and pay more than Mom n Pop stores would pay.
quote:
quote:
If you're arguing that local entrepreneurs are more sustainable than national chains, you probably aren't going to get an argument. Many developing areas don't have that luxury.
Yet when their city's or area's skyline is nothing BUT chains, then it becomes a truck stop like everywhere else, and nobody has any real attachment to the area, the same that can be found anywhere and everywhere, and so people rather than feel a sense of belonging and attachment to the area just move to the new and shiny, and the place they left goes directly to hell.
We get it. You dislike chains and think it's better to have a ghetto ghost town than a few chains which help economic development. Never mind those chains lead to development, which leads to paychecks, and possibly local start ups in the future.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:52 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You shitting me? Hell, Walmart displays several sections of local stuff here. SO does Costco, Fred Meyer, etc. They also hire employees and pay more than Mom n Pop stores would pay.
Not even remotely shitting you. Let's take Walmart. Produce is from out of state, protein from out of state, and virtually everything is from out of state, because they have distribution centers to sell their product almost exclusively.
The pay is driven by a system already well entrenched, and for every one Walmart, you could easily have 10 different local places in business which makes a lot more revenue, and rather than the wealth leaving the state, it stays here, especially when they buy local product themselves, causing every time money is exchanged our infrastructure to be funded just that much more.
Take a bag of sugar grown in South America, refined and then packaged at a plant in the say Indiana. It's shipped to the headquarters in Arkansas, and distributed to centers all over the country. Who really makes the money and retains it? The grower takes his cut and spend it where he lives, as does the packager, and the grocer. Product is sold in BR, and our city gets a little tax revenue, the exact same it gets from a local independent, a little payroll, again, the same it gets from a local independent, and profits the rest is gone for good to be shared elsewhere where the wealth goes.
Now, let's take a local scenario.... Local independent grocer buys sugar from a local sugar company that refines the product at a local refinery, and packages it, ships it off to a local purveyor. Everyone makes their money, all jobs are local, creating more revenue for the state, and especially everytime it changes hands tax is collected, which funds our infrastructure where we live. More local jobs, more local business and industry, and more wealth than Walmart could ever hope to offer a community, and by a great deal.
Now, the local grocer buys from many many other local growers and producers. The local growers and producers buy from other local companies, who are supported by and buy from other local people, all of which supports where we live, where the wealth works for us, and is taxed to fund our infrastructure.
That's why buying local is important and critical to our survival, and why chains frick us all up the arse and allow us to live on their plantation.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:59 pm to Mike da Tigah
Again, you have to choose between a rotten shite hole commercial area and shitty hood with no development or a few chains. In the real world with no unicorns or rainbows we have to pick one. What do you pick?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:59 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Not even remotely shitting you. Let's take Walmart. Produce is from out of state, protein from out of state, and virtually everything is from out of state, because they have distribution centers to sell their product almost exclusively.
Many "chains" sell both locally sourced and imported. Many "chains" also use local businesses to provide services (security, etc)
quote:
The pay is driven by a system already well entrenched, and for every one Walmart, you could easily have 10 different local places in business which makes a lot more revenue, and rather than the wealth leaving the state, it stays here,
Possibly. Mom n Pop didn't pay worth shite though.
quote:
especially when they buy local product themselves, causing every time money is exchanged our infrastructure to be funded just that much more.
This isn't always the case.
quote:
Now, let's take a local scenario.... Local independent grocer buys sugar from a local sugar company that refines the product at a local refinery, and packages it, ships it off to a local purveyor. Everyone makes their money, all jobs are local, creating more revenue for the star, and especially everytime it changes hands tax is collected, which funds our infrastructure where we live. More local jobs, more local business and industry, and more wealth than Walmart could ever over a community by a great deal.
No one's arguing chains are better than local. You're arguing the barren ghetto is better than some chains.
quote:
Now, the local grocer buys from many many other local growers and producers. The local growers and producers buy from other local companies, who are supported by and buy from other local people, all of which supports where we live, where the wealth works for us, and is taxed to fund our infrastructure.
Most locals buy from SYSCO, and other regional food services or cooperative establishments.
quote:
That's why buying local is important and critical to our survival, and why chains frick us all up the arse and allow us to live on their plantation.
Now, that's hyperbole.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:09 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Many "chains" sell both locally sourced and imported. Many "chains" also use local businesses to provide services (security, etc)
There is very little etc....
quote:
Possibly. Mom n Pop didn't pay worth shite though.
Self created problem brought to you by the system.
quote:
Most locals buy from SYSCO, and other regional food services or cooperative establishments.
True, bought to you by the system in place which determines what is grown.
There are a few that do make a real concerted effort to buy local product from the growers themselves, and occasionally perhaps Sysco or Southside may offer it as an option, but that's far from the rule, rather the extreme exception to the rule. As for protein, good freaking luck, even local seafood for that matter, and almost always frozen.
Again, it's the system set in place that makes it most difficult to function the way it could or should. These are of course not foreign concepts to mankind, but they certainly are to Post 1950's America.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News