7 ms·

Walmart is irrelevant if there aren't any near you.

• __derek__ 4y ago
  The same goes for Kroger/Albertons, and Walmart's footprint is broader than Kroger and Albertsons combined. FWIW, I live in Seattle, one of the few areas of the US where your comment applies (Kroger and Albertsons nearby, but not Walmart). I could probably get to 20 of these companies' stores (QFC, Fred Meyer, Safeway, Albertsons) faster than the nearest Walmart. The merger doesn't faze me because we also have Costco, Amazon Fresh, Trader Joe's, PCC, Met Market, and a smattering of independent grocers and co-ops.
  • ece 4y ago
    It's a bit ironic that city councils that kept Walmart out, are powerless to stop something like this. I mostly can't look at this from a less-competition-good POV, but hey, not just the lawyers, but the monopolists will do just fine too.
  • __derek__ 4y ago
    I realized that I missed Whole Foods, which reinforces the point.
    • ece 4y ago
      As the article points out, divesting some stores in some locations isn't a long term solution that has worked in the past. I don't think it's in anyone's interests to have oligopolistic supply chains and grocery stores. If you look at the other related story on HN today, you'll see the top 4 grocers have jumped from 10-15% of the market share to ~35% and plenty of suburban and rural havoc caused by mergers. If the status quo is sustainable, which it seems like it is, then there is little reason to not consider these mergers monopolistic and stop them.