| Wasillaguy |
04-23-2015 11:59 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
(Post 268018)
Walmart's history is one of cruising into a non-urban area, driving any competition out, employing formerly decently employed workers at whatever miserable wage the Republican red state legislature allows them to get away with. The purchasing power of the community is reduced, driving other retailers under, and causing further economic decline. And then when their joint is no longer profitable enough, or wages have crept up to a point where it might be livable...they move on.
The Walton family is scum...and has been scum since they opened the first Walmart in Rogers, Arkansas in 1962.
|
Do you have some credible study that backs up your claim?
This study (covering 40 counties) concludes otherwise-
http://www.dailyyonder.com/does-wal-...009/04/07/2050
Quote:
The results? “Despite its kill-them-all reputation, Wal-Mart is not the threat that many fear, at least in terms of economic benchmarks commonly associated with healthy, growing communities,” wrote Fitzgerald and Wirtz.
In communities with new Wal-Marts, employment, earnings and new businesses grew slightly more than in counties without the big blue retailer from Arkansas. Then again, it’s not exactly like having a Wal-Mart was a boon for counties. “Poverty rates, for example, declined in most counties during the period studied, but they declined by less (poverty rates didn't improve as much) in Wal-Mart counties,” wrote Fitzgerald and Wirtz. “By other measures, Wal-Mart had no noticeable effect. Overall, counties with and without Wal-Mart had similar growth in population and income per person.”
It is true that Wal-Mart set up shop in larger rural counties. None of the counties with populations under 10,000 in 1985 had a Wal-Mart by 2005. Generally, the larger the population in the upper rural midwest, the more likely a Wal-Mart would come to town. Those larger counties with Wal-Marts did tend to grow a little bit faster than counties that were without Wal-Marts, but not by much. Similarly, Wal-Mart counties tended to show faster growth in earnings per job and employment.
On the other hand, non-Wal-Mart counties saw a greater increase in total compensation (wages plus benefits). Again, however, the differences between Wal-Mart and non-Wal-Mart rural counties was small.
There wasn’t even that much difference from county to county in the growth of general merchandising establishments. Counties with and without Wal-Marts saw a decline in the number of general merchandise stores. “The presence or absence of Wal-Mart is neither an obvious anchor nor a hot air balloon for business growth in a county,” according to the authors.
Poverty rates in non-Wal-Mart rural counties did decline more than in counties with the retailer. “Counties with supercenters fared better, but poverty in those counties still did not improve as much as in those counties without a Wal-Mart,” according to Firtzgerald and Wirtz.
So.... after studying rural counties over two decades, the Minneapolis Fed researchers conclude that Wal-Mart doesn’t really matter that much to the overall economy of a rural county. Stores open and close — with our without a Wal-Mart around. Some measures of economic success go up with a Wal-Mart while others go down, leading the authors to conclude that “it's probably safest to say that Wal-Mart's net imprint on a county's health appears to be smaller than most perceive.”
Fitzgerald and Wirtz wrote that there are several other factors — education levels, an entrepreneurial culture, good infrastructure — that are far more important to a county’s success than a Wal-Mart. “If that's surprising,” they conclude, “maybe it shouldn't be.”
|
|
