3 ms·

Are they not also one of the causes of that transition?

bilbo0s 8y ago
Not really. Walmart did not make the factories go away for instance. Now what Walmart did do was to take advantage of the economic detritus left in flyover country as productivity gains and outsourcing started to eviscerate the jobs landscape. But Walmart was not the cause so much as they came along after and capitalized on the ruins.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  That's like saying the jackals nipping at your flanks are just responding to drought conditions but but bear no responsibility for the bites they're taking out of you. I get the point you're making but it seems a mite disingenuous.
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  I disagree. It's a cliche at this point that when Wal-Mart enters a town, all the mom and pop stores close up. The profit margins from distributing these goods now contributes to $WMT rather than staying in the local economy.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    The presence of Walmart also helps the low-income members of a community by providing a one-stop shop for low priced, generally acceptable quality goods. When I graduated from college and had my first job and apartment, a relatively large amount of my income was spent at the local Walmart. It was a godsend for me at the time. What I didn't spend at all those too inefficient to compete mom and pop stores was money that I could use to pay off student loans, rent, utilities, and still have a little money left over to save up an emergency fund.
- zanny 8y ago
  Walmart alone doesn't constitute a significant enough employee base to influence the national economy but I'm pretty sure the behavior of retail in general, where you exploit unskilled labor and the welfare system to use public benefits as an employee subsidy absolutely contribute to the decline. Its harder to invest in meaningful job creation when you are spending inordinate amounts of money keeping Walmarts employees fed and housed.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Its harder to invest in meaningful job creation when you are spending inordinate amounts of money keeping Walmarts employees fed and housed. If the Walmart disappears, you don't end up with former Walmart employees with middle class jobs, you end up with former Walmart employees who are now unemployed, require even more government assistance, and have to spend more for staples along with everyone else in town. Government subsidizing low wage workers is how redistribution of wealth works. That's its mechanism of operation. The rich pay taxes and the government gives the money to lower income people. It would be great if we could just stop having lower income people so we wouldn't need to subsidize them anymore, but where does that money come from? When the answer is higher unemployment and higher prices for other lower income customers, how is it better for the money to come from them instead of wealthier taxpayers?

Not really. Walmart did not make the factories go away for instance. Now what Walmart did do was to take advantage of the economic detritus left in flyover country as productivity gains and outsourcing started to eviscerate the jobs landscape. But Walmart was not the cause so much as they came along after and capitalized on the ruins.

anigbrowl 8y ago
That's like saying the jackals nipping at your flanks are just responding to drought conditions but but bear no responsibility for the bites they're taking out of you. I get the point you're making but it seems a mite disingenuous.
throwaway080383 8y ago
I disagree. It's a cliche at this point that when Wal-Mart enters a town, all the mom and pop stores close up. The profit margins from distributing these goods now contributes to $WMT rather than staying in the local economy.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  The presence of Walmart also helps the low-income members of a community by providing a one-stop shop for low priced, generally acceptable quality goods. When I graduated from college and had my first job and apartment, a relatively large amount of my income was spent at the local Walmart. It was a godsend for me at the time. What I didn't spend at all those too inefficient to compete mom and pop stores was money that I could use to pay off student loans, rent, utilities, and still have a little money left over to save up an emergency fund.
zanny 8y ago
Walmart alone doesn't constitute a significant enough employee base to influence the national economy but I'm pretty sure the behavior of retail in general, where you exploit unskilled labor and the welfare system to use public benefits as an employee subsidy absolutely contribute to the decline. Its harder to invest in meaningful job creation when you are spending inordinate amounts of money keeping Walmarts employees fed and housed.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Its harder to invest in meaningful job creation when you are spending inordinate amounts of money keeping Walmarts employees fed and housed. If the Walmart disappears, you don't end up with former Walmart employees with middle class jobs, you end up with former Walmart employees who are now unemployed, require even more government assistance, and have to spend more for staples along with everyone else in town. Government subsidizing low wage workers is how redistribution of wealth works. That's its mechanism of operation. The rich pay taxes and the government gives the money to lower income people. It would be great if we could just stop having lower income people so we wouldn't need to subsidize them anymore, but where does that money come from? When the answer is higher unemployment and higher prices for other lower income customers, how is it better for the money to come from them instead of wealthier taxpayers?