The death of a few retailers in the 1970s was no different. Grants pushed credit to the point of fake names buying merchandise. Suppliers became leery when they were paid slowly or not at all due to "lost" invoices. Corporate became top heavy with one buyer having six assistants -- and 30 or so buyers companywide, so you can imagine the payroll and chaos. They were all located in subpar locations which Kmart gladly took over (several hundred locations) with base rents in the cents. Kmart also grabbed locations of S. Klein (owned by McCrory Stores) and JM Fields (owned by supermarket company Food Fair) when those failed. Kmart snapped up their leases that were obscenely low in rent. The company was smart and made a lot of money on those stores. What makes Kmart today different than the latter two failed chains? It is corporate top heavy. It can be profitable with less corporate people and fewer DCs and fewer associates at store level. Each present day Kmart is not only responsible for its own staff, but for over 100 people at the corporate level. Is that really necessary? Target doesn't have that ratio of corporate people per store. Meijer doesn't either. Rose's? Nope. Shoppers World and their 10 stores? Definitely not. Walmart? Nowhere near.
Perfectly said, @O7SDvUy-1pzh. They are being intentionally obtuse and trying to solve the issue on the wrong end, when it is obvious where the real problem lies.