6 ms·

Agree. The most pro-Wal-Mart economists will tell you that Wal-Mart as a firm has boosted the US economy by at least 1% of GDP, by being more efficient, and for

Agree. The most pro-Wal-Mart economists will tell you that Wal-Mart as a firm has boosted the US economy by at least 1% of GDP, by being more efficient, and forcing its competitors to be more efficient as well. Suppose for a moment that we accept that claim uncritically -- it is still very clear to see that these gains do not accrue through the vehicle of employment. Indeed, the non-logistics savings from Wal-Mart comes in no small part from reducing the number of workers involved in retail. As with many economic situations, the losses are simply concentrated and obvious, while the gains are diffuse and spread across many transactions from many shoppers. In this case, the gains accrue as part of every grocery-store transaction in the country (and particularly to the poorest in the country, who are most price-sensitive). One can hold many opinions about the matter, and one can dispute that there is a net benefit at all, but it is clear that referring to this as "good for workers" is not particularly enlightening.

sokoloff 6y ago
There's "good for workers as workers" and "good for workers as consumers". Walmart and Amazon are very good for workers-as-consumers, IMO.
- abnry 6y ago
  Your point is often missed and I wish it was stated more often. However, I think the current sticking point for many is that, while their wage may allow them to buy more consumer goods, it is a lot harder than it used to be to pay for housing and health care.
- maest 6y ago
  Arguably that's a contributor to the increase in wealth gap, which is what the GGGP post was originally about.
6510 6y ago
> forcing its competitors to be more efficient as well Right, must be good for those workers too!
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  Especially when being more efficient amounts to automating production and cutting the workforce / finding new ways to squeeze value out of workers while reducing expenses.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
Even the most anti-Walmart economists will concede that Walmart has had a non-trivial positive effect on combating inflation for staple goods. When everything's cheaper, it's a bit like everyone gets a raise - the only people who get screwed are the workers. As much as I support local, family-owned businesses on an individual level, I also recognize that for the vast majority of people, cheaper goods are much better for their lives. I do wish we forced large corporations to pay for any government benefits that their workers collect, though, and continue to push for living wages that make sense at the local level.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Should only large corporations pay for benefits their workers collect? Why should medium, small, and micro businesses be exempted? Transparently, I ask that question because I’m wary of creating a system where employers have a direct economic incentive to not hire people who would be likely to receive government benefits. Nearly the last thing someone on government support needs is employers not wanting to hire them. If that means (as I think it does) that corporations are not individually tagged for their specific workers’ benefits, so be it. I’m also opposed (though less strongly) to creating a taxation system where taxation levels are not reasonably predictable, given enough effort. If I don’t know whether Joe is going to cost me $30K/yr or $50K/yr and I’ve got 500K “Joes”, that’s $10 billion dollars of annual uncertainty. Even if you cap the uncertainty to between 25% and 75% of the range, it’s $5B. For $5B/yr, I can find a bunch of other arrangements that give me less exposure (most obviously using subcontractors who aren’t themselves “large companies”, but even if they are, it becomes “their problem” which is better than “my problem”).

sokoloff 6y ago

There's "good for workers as workers" and "good for workers as consumers". Walmart and Amazon are very good for workers-as-consumers, IMO.

abnry 6y ago
Your point is often missed and I wish it was stated more often. However, I think the current sticking point for many is that, while their wage may allow them to buy more consumer goods, it is a lot harder than it used to be to pay for housing and health care.
maest 6y ago
Arguably that's a contributor to the increase in wealth gap, which is what the GGGP post was originally about.

6510 6y ago

> forcing its competitors to be more efficient as well Right, must be good for those workers too!

pietrovismara 6y ago
Especially when being more efficient amounts to automating production and cutting the workforce / finding new ways to squeeze value out of workers while reducing expenses.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

Even the most anti-Walmart economists will concede that Walmart has had a non-trivial positive effect on combating inflation for staple goods. When everything's cheaper, it's a bit like everyone gets a raise - the only people who get screwed are the workers. As much as I support local, family-owned businesses on an individual level, I also recognize that for the vast majority of people, cheaper goods are much better for their lives. I do wish we forced large corporations to pay for any government benefits that their workers collect, though, and continue to push for living wages that make sense at the local level.

sokoloff 6y ago
Should only large corporations pay for benefits their workers collect? Why should medium, small, and micro businesses be exempted? Transparently, I ask that question because I’m wary of creating a system where employers have a direct economic incentive to not hire people who would be likely to receive government benefits. Nearly the last thing someone on government support needs is employers not wanting to hire them. If that means (as I think it does) that corporations are not individually tagged for their specific workers’ benefits, so be it. I’m also opposed (though less strongly) to creating a taxation system where taxation levels are not reasonably predictable, given enough effort. If I don’t know whether Joe is going to cost me $30K/yr or $50K/yr and I’ve got 500K “Joes”, that’s $10 billion dollars of annual uncertainty. Even if you cap the uncertainty to between 25% and 75% of the range, it’s $5B. For $5B/yr, I can find a bunch of other arrangements that give me less exposure (most obviously using subcontractors who aren’t themselves “large companies”, but even if they are, it becomes “their problem” which is better than “my problem”).