Wal-Mart Locates in Poorville, USA
Wal-Mart opens in poor communities? You're kidding. Who would've guessed that a deep discounter specializing in off-brand products and requiring a low-productivity workforce would overlook downtown San Francisco and midtown Manhattan as target markets?
Of course, I'm sure the "negative and significant relationship" between Wal-Mart presence and low incomes means that Wal-Mart causes low incomes. Another newsflash: apparently, Nordstrom's causes people to be rich.
Hat Tip: www.Alwayslowprices.net
Liza Featherstone makes an important point, almost certainly without meaning to, that Mises made in Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition-- Big Business is completely and utterly beholden to the wants of "the masses." If Wal-Mart doesn't satisfy the wants, needs, and preferences of the "least of these" among us, you can be sure that Target, K-Mart, and Aldi will be more than happy to do so.
Comments (8)
There seems to be no end in site to the anti-capitalism in this country. This is made twice as bad by ignoring the way that some non-profits act under the giuse of "charity" such as the YMCA. Originally granted non-profit (tax exempt) status for its mission to bring athletics to the impoverished, the Y has decided that it's much more lucrative to service upscale areas and compete directly with for-profit health clubs already struggling under the weight of increasing federal regulation with John McCain promising more to come.
Published: December 22, 2004 9:25 AM
There seems to be no end in site to the anti-capitalism in this country. This is made twice as bad by ignoring the way that some non-profits act under the giuse of "charity" such as the YMCA. Originally granted non-profit (tax exempt) status for its mission to bring athletics to the impoverished, the Y has decided that it's much more lucrative to service upscale areas and compete directly with for-profit health clubs already struggling under the weight of increasing federal regulation with John McCain promising more to come.
Published: December 22, 2004 9:26 AM
Walmart on the other hand seems to have no problem with the cities that it builds in using eminent domain and being handed a piece of property by a city that stole it from its residents.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse itself in its upcoming case that using eminent domain in this way does not constitute "public use" under the constitution.
Published: December 22, 2004 10:20 AM
Of course we need to do away with Wal-Mart. As everyone knows, once we get rid of the discount retailers that create poverty, everyone will be richer, and we can tax them to provide the poor with food stamps to use at upscale grocery stores! (At least that's how I follow the liberal logic. Kind of makes my head hurt).
Published: December 22, 2004 11:36 AM
Let us be honest with ourselves. Of course Wal-Mart is involved in creative destruction. Its victims look to the state and federal governments in the same way lobbyists in $ 2,5k business suits look to uncle sam for a handdout (enforcement of their pet monopoly) in state and federal halls of influence.
Let us call a spade a spade, and not be biased.
Published: December 22, 2004 3:49 PM
I would wager that impoverished communities--suffering under the weight of debt-transfer from the federal/state governments--have been all too eager to "change some codes here and there" to facilitate big-box behemoths. What are the metrics on such City Hall legislative impact? Are they negligible? Are they easy to dismiss because of "low low prices every day?" Do these behemoth retailers lobby for such debt-transfers toward civic governments so they can set and spring consumer traps all across the land?
Will we next see "Help our Communities" strategies from these multinationals--much like the Hell's Angels do to improve their image? Do such "caring organizations" share the same PR firm?
Lobbying to influence flows of income/debt between levels of government to hopefully increase chances for "our business model" success among the poor, desperate public? Sounds like socialism to me.
Schooling the [unfortunate existence of a] social assistance system to help the business "bottom line" by transferring the cost of employment-benefits onto all workers across all sectors? Sounds like socialism to me.
Published: December 22, 2004 6:59 PM
Even if it is true that Wal-Mart encourages its employees to apply for welfare, why would these critics, at the same time, support a system that is so easily abused?
Published: December 24, 2004 2:36 AM
I reserve little patience for corporations taking advantage of the very social programs that they themselves do not intend to lobby the government for scale-back or elimination--like the US agriculture industry, for example, where there is a current "necessity" to keep the flow of cheap labour coming up from Mexico.
Mind you, US Walmart stores have also been caught employing Mexicans of dubious legality, so add that to the list of social-program scams of which they have heard whispers.
I hope Walmart rethinks the "selective-collective" aspects of its business tactics, because the rest of what they do for market economics is valuable.
Published: December 24, 2004 5:14 AM