If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?
What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?
Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?
Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?
Which would you rather have:
– good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?
OR
– low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.
BTW, the corporate “benefits” burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and “free” meals at school for the kids, since their parents can’t afford food. Poor people — who are treated like commodities — tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can’t wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won’t have to pick up any of Wal-Mart’s slack there, no sireee.
I’d rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.
Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.
