Wal-Mart Bashers: Either Dishonest or Dumb
Democrats' Wal-Mart bashing has been criticized repeatedly on this site. In fact, it makes no sense unless Democrats are either (1) acting as union shills or (2) economically illiterate.
As this piece in Investors' Business Daily points out:
After looking at 25 small towns in different states where Wal-Mart opened stores in 2002, economists Richard Vedder of Ohio University and researcher Bryan O'Keefe of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that employment growth was stronger in Wal-Mart communities than in others.
In a separate study, economist Emek Basker of the University of Missouri found that, on average, a new Wal-Mart kills 50 local retailing jobs, but creates 100 others — a net gain of 50. And, contrary to Democrats' claims, local wages don't decline.
Labor Department data show that labor productivity for "big-box" discount stores like Wal-Mart rose at a sizzling 7.6% pace from 1987 to 2004. And according to the McKinsey Global Institute, productivity gains at Wal-Mart alone accounted for an amazing 13% of all productivity gains in the U.S. from 1995 to 1999 — smack in the middle of the so-called Internet boom.
A study by economic consultant Global Insight found that, from 1985 to 2004, Wal-Mart slashed food-at-home prices by 9.1%, goods prices by 4.2% and overall consumer prices by 3.1%. If those cuts don't sound huge, consider that, all told, they saved mostly poor and middle-class consumers $263 billion — or $895 per person and $2,329 per household.
So, Wal-Mart bashers, which is it? Are you dishonest -- or just dumb?
As this piece in Investors' Business Daily points out:
After looking at 25 small towns in different states where Wal-Mart opened stores in 2002, economists Richard Vedder of Ohio University and researcher Bryan O'Keefe of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that employment growth was stronger in Wal-Mart communities than in others.
In a separate study, economist Emek Basker of the University of Missouri found that, on average, a new Wal-Mart kills 50 local retailing jobs, but creates 100 others — a net gain of 50. And, contrary to Democrats' claims, local wages don't decline.
Labor Department data show that labor productivity for "big-box" discount stores like Wal-Mart rose at a sizzling 7.6% pace from 1987 to 2004. And according to the McKinsey Global Institute, productivity gains at Wal-Mart alone accounted for an amazing 13% of all productivity gains in the U.S. from 1995 to 1999 — smack in the middle of the so-called Internet boom.
A study by economic consultant Global Insight found that, from 1985 to 2004, Wal-Mart slashed food-at-home prices by 9.1%, goods prices by 4.2% and overall consumer prices by 3.1%. If those cuts don't sound huge, consider that, all told, they saved mostly poor and middle-class consumers $263 billion — or $895 per person and $2,329 per household.
So, Wal-Mart bashers, which is it? Are you dishonest -- or just dumb?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:06 AM
8 Comments:
having read editor's comments, I'm going with dishonest
Beloved commenters:
Let's all be mindful of the rules against ad hominem (or ad feminam) attacks, please.
And of course, eddy prefers to believe the critics of Wal-mart without looking at how they might benefit from their criticisms. Yeah. Dishonest. No, dumb. Well with eddy, it's hard to tell. Either works.
Sorry Carol.
But only a little.
On a pretty basic level, WalMart serves the very constituency the Democrats have long claimed to champion.
They provide cheap goods for shoppers and entry-level jobs for those who need them. (Once that seasonally employed teens... do teens still work? It's been *ahem* "a few years" since I last fell into that category.)
I'm not sure how passionate WalMart shoppers are, but I have to wonder if they take offense personally to these sorts of attacks. If they do, it's a pretty poor way for Democrats to tell 'their people' they love them.
It is not surprising that the right thinks tax payers should subsidize social services for Walmart employees.
I don't think you could possibly be any more wrong on that point.
I am correct. Tax payers are paying for social services for Walmart employees.
No dispute there. However you are wrong to say that "the right thinks tax payers should subsidize social services for Walmart employees."
Your friend... has she graduated?
Nice going, eddy. Now read that list of my quotes on a daily basis. It'll save me time.
Man, I've been on pins and needles all weekend long waiting to hear if Editor's friend ever graduated. For all I know she's perpetually working a part-time job at Walmart.
(Or, you know, not so much...)
Post a Comment
<< Home