Supermarkets 'creating jobs' WTF?

[singlecoil]

In the news again, this time it's Asda creating 5,000 jobs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16676688

But I thought that the whole point of owning supermarkets was to keep the cost of purveying a set amount of food etc right down, in part by employing less staff than would be necessary to retail that much product through other outlets. Now, if that's true, then how does opening supermarkets create jobs? Is the fact that there is now a supermarket in an area mean that the customers in that area are going to consume more (and if so, where is that money going to come from)? Or that fresh money is going to come in from outside the area to pay for more product?

My guess is that those 5,000 jobs are going to be created at the expense other jobs in the areas concerned, when the existing retail outlets close as a result of the new competiton. I'm not in any way saying such competition is a bad thing, I'm just calling bullst on the job creation claim.

[singlecoil]

eharding said:

So, if Asda announced 5000 redundancies, presumably that would be cause for celebration?

Well, if those redundancies were caused by them closing supermarkets, I imagine there would be much rejoicing in those areas amongst the businesses that were best placed to supply the demand created, and if those businesses were less efficient, then quite possibly more than 5,000 jobs would be created.

[singlecoil]

eharding said:

So, you're arguing that we can reduce unemployment by making businesses less efficient?

There's really only one point to my argument on this thread, and that is that Asda (or whichever supermarket it is that happens to announce an expansion) is not creating jobs, it's actually reducing the overall number of jobs in the area concerned.

Now I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, just that the press releases are bks.

[singlecoil]

Gargamel said:

Surely this is the essential nature of capitalism and market efficiency.

Strong , efficient organisation displacing weak ineffective or higher cost business models.

The response of independent stores located nearby, SHOULD be to offer a higher quality of service, better or more exclusive products or in some way differentiate themselves. Or go head to head with Asda and let the public decide where they want to shop.

This is kind of like being annoyed that Steam Engines caused massive unemployment amongst canal diggers. No?

Well, I'm not annoyed by the efficiencies causing job losses, I'm annoyed by the claim that jobs are being created (and that being reported on BBC News), when they are not.

[singlecoil]

Ozzie Osmond said:

...which explains why nobody goes to supermarkets.

Nice one.

Feel free to add something other than sarcastic remarks to this thread.

[singlecoil]

jimothy said:

Surely as the population of an area increases due to immigration and birth rates higher than death rates, then there will be increased consumption.
So in the longer term, they can 'create jobs'.

When a supermarket opens people start using it. Where were those people shopping before? Other supermarkets or other sorts of shops. The only way a supermarket can create jobs is if people move to its catchment area specifically because the supermarket is there, but even then it will be at the expense of wherever they were buying previously.

[singlecoil]

Ozzie Osmond said:

singlecoil said:

Feel free to add something...

In your opening post you say that for a supermarket to "create jobs" is not possible, because in your analysis more jobs are lost elsewhere.

What is your view of carpenters who use power tools, thus working more efficiently and putting traditional carpenters with hand tools out of business?

I was suggesting that you add something other than sarcastic remarks or irrelevant questions. Surely you have an opinion on the topic?

[singlecoil]

AJS- said:

singlecoil said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

singlecoil said:

Feel free to add something...

In your opening post you say that for a supermarket to "create jobs" is not possible, because in your analysis more jobs are lost elsewhere.

What is your view of carpenters who use power tools, thus working more efficiently and putting traditional carpenters with hand tools out of business?

I was suggesting that you add something other than sarcastic remarks or irrelevant questions. Surely you have an opinion on the topic?

It seems like a sound example to me. You seem to be bemoaning jobs being lost to efficiency gains. How far back would you take it?

A good example of the problem with skim reading a thread-


You must have missed this post altogether

singlecoil said:

There's really only one point to my argument on this thread, and that is that Asda (or whichever supermarket it is that happens to announce an expansion) is not creating jobs, it's actually reducing the overall number of jobs in the area concerned.

Now I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, just that the press releases are bks.

[singlecoil]

F i F said:

considering High St rents and council rates.

I felt I should draw attention to the fact that business rates, although collected by the local council, actually go to central government. They are a fixed (by central government) proportion of the market rent, so it's the rents that are the problem.

[singlecoil]

AJS- said:

I had read it, it just doesn't change anything.

Did you read it before you posted this?

AJS- said:

You seem to be bemoaning jobs being lost to efficiency gains.

Because if you did, your post doesn't make any sense, as nothing I have said could be construed in that way.

[singlecoil]

AJS- said:

Your original post said you were calling bullst on the job creation claim. ASDA issued a press release saying they are creating 5,000 jobs, meaning they are hiring 5,000 people who they didn't employ before. Not adding 5,000 jobs to the economy as a whole. That isn't ASDA's business.

Nor is it part of the BBC's business to promote Asda on the breakfast televison news, and yet they did, with the clear implication that Asda was creating new jobs, and not just Asda jobs.

AJS- said:

singlecoil said:

Well, if those redundancies were caused by them closing supermarkets, I imagine there would be much rejoicing in those areas amongst the businesses that were best placed to supply the demand created, and if those businesses were less efficient, then quite possibly more than 5,000 jobs would be created.

Does appear to me to be bemoaning jobs lost due to efficiency gains.

I can't help the way it seems to you. Perhaps if you had left the context in (the quote I was replying to) the meaning might be clearer, and it certainly doesn't mean what you are taking it to mean.

[singlecoil]

F i F said:

So to be objective about this, apart from the small technical error or referring to business rates as council rates, my point pretty much stands firm, i.e rents and rates are a big part of the problem.

But if the rents are reduced, they will have no choice but to reduce the rates, as long as rates are tied to market rents, then it needs to rent to go down before the rates can be reduced. I do agree that having to stump up 40 odd percent of the market rent in tax (rates) is a big part of the problem.

[singlecoil]

Digga said:

singlecoil said:

F i F said:

So to be objective about this, apart from the small technical error or referring to business rates as council rates, my point pretty much stands firm, i.e rents and rates are a big part of the problem.

But if the rents are reduced, they will have no choice but to reduce the rates, as long as rates are tied to market rents, then it needs to rent to go down before the rates can be reduced. I do agree that having to stump up 40 odd percent of the market rent in tax (rates) is a big part of the problem.

In why case why not argue that rates are actually set too high? They are, after all, at an arbitrary level.

Rents cannot easily drop on premises that have already been bought/mortgaged and need a senisble yield without landlords going bust or deserting the high street in droves.

Well, because the rates are a tax, and the tax is based on the general idea that if people can afford the high rent, then they can afford to pay tax on it. Same idea as income tax.

I can well understand the LLs' point of view, they don't see why they should reduce the rent on properties they have paid a lot of money for, and as long as they can get it, why not ask a high rent? The trouble comes when they can't get it, and rather than reduce the rent, they will leave the properties empty.