Will inner city residents be financially better without the looted stores?

So, stores are looted and damaged in Minneapolis and other cities.

The behavior is obviously bad and illegal, but my question is -- will the destruction of these big brand stores improve inner city residents' financial situation, by reducing the community's total trade deficit, and forcing retail activity back into mom and pop stores, craigslist sales within the community, and forcing merchants to only stock low-price items?

​

My mathematics:

Impoverished neighborhood typically have high unemployment. Many people do not have formal jobs.

Chain retailers opened in impoverished neighborhood.

They hire people, paying them salary.

Mom and pop stores cannot compete with them. They closes, add back to the unemployment number.

Big box retailers have to profit. The profit, total revenue - cost of goods - salary, is the net cash they suck out of the impoverished neighborhood.

Without these chain retailers, there are no formal retail jobs in the neighborhood, but retail can take other forms that are less capital intensive, that are more friendly to ghetto entrepreneurs. These ghetto entrepreneurs are economically more connected to the community, than the big box stores.

Also, if everyone lose access to shiny new clothes and shoes, all people only buy used clothes and shoes, this will reduce the cost of "beauty competition".

​

target cash register

​

payless shoesource

For example, shoesource might be replaced by used shoe peddlers on the sidewalk.

​

A sidewalk seller selling used shoes, collected from donation bins and sold for cheap

Target might be replaced by farmer's market, who plant vegetables and raise chickens in their backyard:

​

farmer's market

Bestbuy can be replaced by used computer stores:

​

bestbuy

​

used computer store