Could've, should've, would've
This is basicly a re-hash of my mom and pop arguement from a different angle. This is also observations I have had over the decades.
Let's start with corporation fast food chains and sit down food chains. I heard a long time ago someone say "for every chain fast food place that goes up a diner goes down". He was right but not right enough. I have watched fast food places go up and if there was more than one diner or food establishment nearby they all went down. Saw it happen in quite a few places, and every place I saw, it happened every single time.
No one brings any of that up from the past, because no one wants to admit they helped kill the mom and pop by eating at the corporation. They don't even want to admit to themselves they downsized the job market in the food industry, AND the middle class themselves.
Sure the corporations built that economic structure but it was everyone's own choice to lend their energy towards it. Everyone, furthermore.......chose to believe the myth the chains, and the government, and the media put out about how if people dont spend their money there, the economy was going to get worse. All the while in the very short past they killed more jobs when they put all the mom and pop eateries out of business, in every area they opened a building in.
So let's go with a conservative estimate with my little reverse thinking explaination and see if you all can keep up.
Let's say for every new food chain that opened, two mom and pops died. Yes I know in some places it was only one, but in more places it was three or four, so two is a good number to go by. That is a 2 to 1 ratio. 2:1. Let's further pretend that each chain now has 250 outlets. So basicly going off of that math, 500 families went poof per brand name chain.
BUT WAIT...how many people did each of those places employ?
Ok well, when I walk into still existing mom and pop places I see anywhere from 3-10 employess. Well going off of 500 x 3 plus the original 500 thats 2000, and likewise 500 x 10 plus the original 500 is 5500. Now let's multiply the 2000 and 5500 by four, for the 4 big fast food names, who will remian nameless because everyone knows them. That's 8000 and 22000. I wont even get into the periphrial details such as supply and delivery people that lost income as well when the mom and pops went under. as well as that money no longer being redistributed in the local areas.
The point is, anyone who is not to lazy to think can obviously see what a crock of shit any arguement is that says if these guys go under so does the economy. Because going by what I HAVE SEEN the reverse is true. If they go under more mom and pop places can open back up thus employing MORE PEOPLE.
Just another layer, just another lie.
On another layer of thought also that I have, is that this is also a way of holding on to keeping jobs low, because it seems to act as a barrier to growth as well....unless it is their own growth. I cite as an example as to how the past two years or so I have watched the distances between out outlets shrink as they further continue to open more between the ones they have up already.
Used to be 10-20 miles apart in the 70s.
Used to be 10 miles apart in the 80s.
In the late 90s I could travel a mile in almost any direction and hit a fast food joint then travel a mile in the opposite direction from where I started and hit another of the same chain. Now I am starting to literaly see the same chain down the street from another within eyesight.
How sad is that.
How sad will it be when Everyone finds themselves trying to decide if they are going to eat at the "generic burger" at the left corner or right corner of their street.
See how they basicly weeded out all the independant places?
Right under everyone's noses?
See how they cookie cuttered that same trick for all corners of life as far as independant business goes?
Does anyone even notice they are still doing it?
Want to fix the economy?
Revive the mom and pops and support the mom and pops.
Do the opposite for the coprporations.
:
No trackbacks:
