on Walmart

[BarbaraGordon]

Since we keep going back to the same old toon in the other thread. I'll move this topic.

Okay, I've always heard both arguments about Wal-Mart, either
1. That it stimulates the economy by providing low-priced goods and gives people better quality of life than they could otherwise afford, and that it employs people that frankly might not be employable in other settings
or that
2. It keeps prices artificially low by paying substandard wages, by encouraging part-time employment to avoid providing benefits, and that it decreases competition by maintaining these prices that no one else can match. There are also allegations that workers are expected to work off the clock, etc etc.

so, really smart people, what's the story?

[il Padrino Ute]

Dunno, but Walmart is the only place we'll be able to buy the new AC/DC album.

AC/DC and Walmart

[YOhio]

Okay, this gives me a chance to vent. I hate when people say Tarjay instead of Target. It's not that funny.

[creekster]

Leaving the toons behoind? That's dithpiccable.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Dunno, but Walmart is the only place we'll be able to buy the new AC/DC album.

AC/DC and Walmart

Besides Sams Club and the internet (which is available to everyone all around the planet)

[ChinoCoug]

What Walmart does is create a local monopsony (not monopoly), i.e., they are the only employer in some areas, and hence they can pay as low of wages as they want because they don't have competitors.

However, a really smart guy, Obama's director of economic policy has produced research demonstrating that Walmart actually helps the poor by providing low-cost goods.

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/w...rogressive.pdf

I haven't read the paper but it does sort out both effects (low wages/low prices).

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

However, a really smart guy, Obama's director of economic policy has produced research demonstrating that Walmart actually helps the poor by providing low-cost goods.

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/w...rogressive.pdf

I haven't read the paper but it doesn't sort out both effects (low wages/low prices).

Right, this is exactly what I was wondering. I've noticed in the past that Wal-Mart is almost like a old-time company store. They set the standard for low wages in the area, then people go pick up their walmart paychecks, have no choice but to line up at wal-mart to buy all their stuff for the week, load it up on their Wal-mart credit card with their 5% employee discount, and support the very institution that's in part keeping them impoverished with substandard wages.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Right, this is exactly what I was wondering. I've noticed in the past that Wal-Mart is almost like a old-time company store. They set the standard for low wages in the area, then people go pick up their walmart paychecks, have no choice but to line up at wal-mart to buy all their stuff for the week, load it up on their Wal-mart credit card with their 5% employee discount, and support the very institution that's in part keeping them impoverished with substandard wages.

Oh here we go:

Neither paper estimated the impact of Wal-Mart on real wages. Presumably the workers
in the retail sector and more broadly also benefit from the lower prices that follow the entry of a
Wal-Mart. The nominal wage effects in both papers have to be compared to the 7 to 13 percent
retail price effect in the long run found by Basker or the reduction in the broader CPI found by
Global Insight. Taken together, the evidence appears to suggest that, even for retail workers, the
benefits of lower prices could outweigh any potential cost of lower wages – potentially leading
to higher real wages even in the retail sector.

The increased purchasing power the poor get from Walmart's low prices outweigh the alleged reduction in wages. The poor benefit disproportionately because they spend a higher % of their income on food.

And if you're a liberal like me, you shouldn't worry about "corporate welfare" and the government paying benefits for the poor instead of Walmart. This way the poor get cheap stuff and the government will compensate for their low wages through Medicare. Double bonus for the poor.

Hence Bayh and Richardson were wrong to protest, but at least they're not complete Walmart bashers. Biden and Edwards, go stick it (I know Edwards is gone but I wanna stick it to him one more time).

Obama-Walmart '08

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Right, this is exactly what I was wondering. I've noticed in the past that Wal-Mart is almost like a old-time company store. They set the standard for low wages in the area, then people go pick up their walmart paychecks, have no choice but to line up at wal-mart to buy all their stuff for the week, load it up on their Wal-mart credit card with their 5% employee discount, and support the very institution that's in part keeping them impoverished with substandard wages.

I live in an town that has a large outlying area that is pretty rural and our super Walmart draws every single lower class country person of every race for miles and miles and miles. The vast majority of them don't work there. I think there is little question for them that cheaper groceries and other items are a net plus in their lives. My wife and I were snobby at first about shopping there until we were forced to one day and realized how much less expensive groceries are there (a lot less) and now that is where we go too.

I think it depends on where it is located. I can see how in a city or even a nice suburb those jobs are not very good. But in a small town with a lot of unskilled uneducated labor, that is actually a pretty good job for a lot of people. No question Walmart is a net plus in my small town, not least of all for the tax revenue it provides. Certainly it has hurt a few small store owners who it has put out of business.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I live in an town that has a large outlying area that is pretty rural and our super Walmart draws every single lower class country person of every race for miles and miles and miles. The vast majority of them don't work there. I think there is little question for them that cheaper groceries and other items are a net plus in their lives. My wife and I were snobby at first about shopping there until we were forced to one day and realized how much less expensive groceries are there (a lot less) and now that is where we go too.

I think it depends on where it is located. I can see how in a city or even a nice suburb those jobs are not very good. But in a small town with a lot of unskilled uneducated labor, that is actually a pretty good job for a lot of people. No question Walmart is a net plus in my small town, not least of all for the tax revenue it provides. Certainly it has hurt a few small store owners who it has put out of business.

dude there's so many fat people in Richmond. I was down there a couple of weeks ago. Rivals West Virginia. Goodness! I'm willing to bet it's rural America that's driving up national obesity rates. If we were to examine only metropolitan areas, we'd be more comparable to Europe.