Wal-Mart suddenly closed 5 stores and laid off thousands of workers

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Did you even read the link? These are so called temporary six month closures, ostensibly for plumbing repairs, i.e. retaliatory lockouts to silence employees agitating for a living wage.

edit - It looks like this one is going to the NLRB.

Hopefully the NLRB hasn't become poisoned with conservative corporate suck-ups.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

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

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.”

[Zeke]

Wall*Mart can open and close stores whenever they want.

I don't see the issue.

Oh, sure, it smells but...

[nailer]

...that's American style fascism at work.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Wall*Mart can open and close stores whenever they want.

I don't see the issue.

Oh, sure, it smells but...

For some sick reason, Zeke feels the need to remind everybody that nobody matters but Zeke...(and cops). I suppose it's always good to have at least one closet libertarian on these joints.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

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

PFFFFfffffffffttttttttt....

You got your credible study I got mine...

A study published in 2008 in the Journal of Urban Economics examined about 3,000 Walmart store openings nationally and found that each store caused a net decline of about 150 jobs (as competing retailers downsized and closed) and lowered total wages paid to retail workers.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...ticle-1.140129

https://www.popularresistance.org/ne...local-economy/

Lemme get this next part out of the way...

Was, "Ike's credible studies suck ass."
Ike, "Was' credible study sucks donkey dick."

So it goes on informative web current events forums.

PS - the Walton family are scum along with their "charitable foundation" which has, as far as I can determine, not provided a goddamn penny to anything charitable, but provided the family with a ton of tax benefits.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

For some sick reason, Zeke feels the need to remind everybody that nobody matters but Zeke...(and cops). I suppose it's always good to have at least one closet libertarian on these joints.

So, again, you don't possess any legitimate retort?

I didn't think so.

Idiocy.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

So, again, you don't possess any legitimate retort?

I didn't think so.

Idiocy.

Identifying raging hostile narcissism is always among the most legitimate of retorts.

Here comes the legitimate "I'm rubber you're glue" retort.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Identifying raging hostile narcissism is always among the most legitimate of retorts.

And yet I try to be original when bitch slapping you.

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Here comes the legitimate "I'm rubber you're glue" retort.

The one you just (failed to) use?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

And yet I try to be original when bitch slapping you.

To have any desire to 'bitch slap' someone is diagnostic of a criminal personality.