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.
i don’t think this is particularly true–i think a lot of it just boils down to simple, short-term economic math. frankly, a lot of US land area is in an economic death spiral that makes a Walmart much more appealing than trying to maintain the existing local business community. you can’t count on people keeping businesses in the family in the middle of nowhere–but you can safely assume if you bend over enough for Walmart they’ll stick around and employ people. lotta mayors will take that consistency every time