9 ms·
of course they do, especially in the communities mentioned in the original article, where they employ a substantial amount of the low skilled labor. You can't l
by snapplebobapple 2y ago
of course they do, especially in the communities mentioned in the original article, where they employ a substantial amount of the low skilled labor. You can't look at their employee count in the context of the USA, employment, especially low skilled employment, is very local and sticky.
- sokoloff 2y agoBreaking up Walmart is a possible answer to the US-wide influence, but wouldn’t address the local employment market. Walmart Local Town would still be the big employer in some towns. (And, to the extent that Walmart Local Town is providing better jobs than the next best alternative for town employees, they should be lauded rather than vilified, IMO.)
- snapplebobapple 2y agoThat is incorrect because the us wide nature is what gives it the firepower to ensure no other employers emerge via agressive price competition anywhere they do emerge until the new competitor fails. Walmart local town would have staying profitable at that location as a constraint on competition. Also breaking them up is the correct antitrust mechanism not because of what walmart is doing but because the corruptibility of humanity makes regulatory action almost always fail in the long run. The government can't be trusted to regulate them to a better position for more than a very finite amoubt of time so it is better to not grow the government regulatory arm and instead break the company up to solve the issue.