• Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s very weird that it works all over Europe, but for some reason it’s too expansive for America. It’s almost like it’s not an inevitable course of actions really actually.

    • Grabthar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Might have a wee something to do with the cost and availability of large parcels of land in and around cities in Europe versus North America. If Walmart thought this was a cost-effective approach, they’d be doing it, else they would likely be sued by their shareholders. To be clear, I am not making a value judgement on whether this should be the case.

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yeah, it is indeed a good approach for Walmart. They get to crush the competition due to their size and the economy of scale, be effectively a monopoly, and convince everyone that it’s not only logical and inevitable, and the result of something normal, but good actually.
        The question is, is it good for people who aren’t Walmart shareholders?