Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
wrong.
if you are doing it cheaper... in terms of total disposable income, there is a net gain in the community... which then leads to more spending elsewhere on other goods and services.
|
Yes but if you're doing it cheaper then that inevitably means that you're employing fewer people to do it, which more than offsets any gain made by the money other consumers save.
Plus the profit from Wal-Mart goes back to Arkansas, but the profit from the mom and pops they put out of business stayed in the local community.
I agree that Wal-Mart is a net plus for the community because people get things cheaper, but it's not a net plus for jobs. It doesn't create jobs, it at best transfers jobs and at worst destroys them.
My point with that is that when you ask a mayor or councilman why Wal-Mart gets so many tax breaks and they say "they brought 500 jobs to this town", they're full of shit. The net employment figures for the community are the same or worse....and therefore they don't deserve any of the tax breaks or incentives you would give to say a manufacturing company to come to town.
We just went through alot of this locally with a giant shopping development being built that's going to have 150 stores. The developers/retailers etc all wanted tax breaks and incentives to build this here....and the local pols had the local university economics dept do studies to see if it was worth it.
The conclusion was that retail businesses don't create jobs. These people want to move here to sell things to people that already live here. It benefits them way more than it benefits us and it doesn't bring any new money into the community. (other than the 6 month long, one-off construction jobs to build the place)