Posted on 08/03/2005 12:54:00 PM PDT by summer
.... But to chalk up Wal-Mart's success simply to the exploitation of its work force, as many of the company's most ferocious critics do, is simply wrong, for two reasons.
First, Wal-Mart hasn't just sliced up the economic pie in a way that favors one group over another. Rather, it has made the total pie bigger....
Second, most of the value created by the company is actually pocketed by its customers in the form of lower prices. According to one recent academic study, when Wal-Mart enters a market, prices decrease by 8 percent in rural areas and 5 percent in urban areas.... And because Wal-Mart's presence forces the store's competitors to charge lower prices as well, this $16 billion figure understates the company's real impact by at least half.
These kinds of savings to customers far exceed the costs that Wal-Mart supposedly imposes on society...
... Is such pro-consumerism a good thing?
The answer depends on who these consumers are, and Wal-Mart's customers tend to be the Americans who need the most help. Our research shows that Wal-Mart operates two-and-a-half times as much selling space per inhabitant in the poorest third of states as in the richest third. And within that poorest third of states, 80 percent of Wal-Mart's square footage is in the 25 percent of ZIP codes with the greatest number of poor households. Without the much-maligned Wal-Mart, the rural poor, in particular, would pay several percentage points more for the food and other merchandise that after housing is their largest household expense.
So in thinking about Wal-Mart, let's keep in mind who's reaping the benefits of those "everyday low prices" - and, by extension, where the real conflict lies.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Tell them no. Too complex?"
From your lips to the politicians ears.
I certainly wish that more local planning boards and governments would tell companies like Walmart to pound sand when they demand concessions and tax breaks but unfortunately too many of them fold like cheap cameras (available in aisle 6 at Walmart).
Walmart and other corporations should not get free rides off the back's of the local taxpayers but it happens every day. Walmart and other companies like it have made a science out of getting sweetheart deals and eminent domain takings from municipalities and I don't fault them for trying to get the best deal they can but I do think it is a joke when so called conservatives hold Walmart up as a beacon of "great American business". Walmart is out for Walmart, not anyone or anything else.
I've been criticized for not being sympathetic to job losses. Well, about ten years ago I lost my job and it was the best thing that happened to me in the last ten years. Being nimble is the key.
Yes, things they clearly wouldn't need if they had no job at all.
With all due respect to those military families who do qualify for welfare benefits, this is an exaggeration. My wife is an E-3 in the Navy with less than 17 months of service. Her gross pay (with allowances for housing and subsistence) is about $2800/month. Furthermore, only her base pay (about $1500/month) is taxable income.
Her income by itself would preclude us from any welfare benefits. Of course the fact that I make considerably more puts us way out of range, but that's beside the point.
That's correct and municipalities get money from the state or is that a little too complex for you?
You're too late. BipolarBob Bashing Day was yesterday. It's time to moveon.
Amazing how the far left anf far right see individual economic freedom as a threat.
FR use to be conservative like NRO, American Spectator, now it is more like a John Birch Society meeting in the 1950s. Paranoia, conspiracy theories, and extreme hostility to those who dont share their idealogical purity. People like this eventually turn on one another each accusing the other of being "less pure"
It's never to late to point out the fallacies of your very weak arguments.
As I stated in my post. I am a retired 31 year union member. I also oppose the death penalty. Both of those things subject me to ridicule and worse from the purists here. Never mind that I hate abortion with a passion. I detest government socialist programs and the taxes that come with them and I have never voted for a liberal in my life.
When I first joined I would read all the articles that were about unions. One poster on every article wrote the same thing time after time - "I hate unions" That's the only comment he ever made. I still read the articles about unions but usually skip the comments. They are too predictable.
As for the death penalty, I understand and respect opinions that are different from mine. What I don't understand is when someone says "I hope he rots in hell" when discussing a murderer or child molester and I look on their "about" page and see them describe themselves as "Christian" I don't know what that is but it's not a Christian philosophy.
I won't respond to any challenges to this reply whether about unions or the death penalty. I call myself a Conservative. Others may call me what they will. I am sure I have been called worse.
I actually dont hate unions, they have a place certainly and wouldnt exist if not for employer abuse.
I may not agree with you Bob but I appreciate your sense of humor.
The only thing you may infer from what I am about to tell you is that I am old.
When I enlisted I made $69 per month. When I got out 4 years later I was making almost $300 per month.
Actually I know how the system works quite well and you are not very bright if you think that a typical municipality is going to consider state sales tax revenue as an important impetus for development.
For every state sales tax cent that is collected, the municipality might get back 1/1,000 of that cent in state aid. Not very much and definately not enough to consider it as a big benefit, especially when other municipalities besides yours get the other 999/1000.
Stop and think seriously about how ridiculous your "sales tax benefit" concept is.
The reason municipalities cater to big corporations is usually for "future" property tax revenue. They are hoping to make money on the development at the back end (anywhere from 5 to 10 years). Sometimes it works out well but all too often it does not.
What is not fair is that big corporations demand and get these sweetheart deals (in addition to big $$$ infrastructure improvements) whereas smaller businesses and common taxpayers not only don't get their own deal, they actually have to pay for Walmart's sweetheart deal.
Nice try again.
Is Bob ignorant? Yes. He is telling us they wouldn't be relying on state healthcare subsidies, food stamps, housing vouchers and other public aid if they were working for another retailer or, heaven forbid, were simply unemployed.
When making choices, Bob, stick to choosing between alternatives that actually exist. If you want to get rid of subsidies, then get rid of subsidies. Don't punish or impugn those actually helping people to get off them. Good grief.
I'm very glad to hear things have improved since the 90's. Frankly, anyone who enlists is worth his/her weight in gold.
If I had my way, we'd stop financing the EPA, the NEA (both of 'em), and the IRS, and give the money to the military. That would rock Putin's world.
You may be correct in your area, but Chicago has a sales tax on top of the state's and many areas do also. The sales tax revenue does benefit the state much more, and that certainly helps pay for many of the benefits that lower wage people receive while working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.