Two new research papers challenge that view. Using creative new methods, they find that the costs Walmart imposes in the form of not only lower earnings but also higher unemployment in the wider community outweigh the savings it provides for shoppers. On net, they conclude, Walmart makes the places it operates in poorer than they would be if it had never shown up at all. Sometimes consumer prices are an incomplete, even misleading, signal of economic well-being.

Their conclusion: In the 10 years after a Walmart Supercenter opened in a given community, the average household in that community experienced a 6 percent decline in yearly income—equivalent to about $5,000 a year in 2024 dollars—compared with households that didn’t have a Walmart open near them. Low-income, young, and less-educated workers suffered the largest losses.

    • some_guy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Depends on whether you believe everything you read outright or wait for honest critical analysis.

      I guess that tells us which camp you’re in.

      • TheColonel@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Fuck that, if you’ve ever lived in a small town (or hell, even medium-sized), you’ve seen it with your own eyes over the last 20 years.

        I don’t have to believe what I read when I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

        I guess that tells us what camp you’re in.

        Go lick boots. I hear Wal-Mart’s constantly hiring.