Its interesting how the anti-Walmart folks have been able to set the terms of the debate. Here we have an article that defends the supercenters on the grounds that they benefit low-income households. True enough - but the best defense of Walmart is that it is making money. It does this by providing a service that its customers want. And yes, the shareholders are making money. That is what SHOULD happen when a corporation provides a service that its customers want. The answer to those who oppose Walmart is; if you don't like the way Walmart does business, then compete against it. Set up a non-profit big box operation that pays high wages and good benefits, and only buys and sells products made in America. Yes, this may be difficult. You think Sam Walton had it easy? He started small and kept building. Bottom line; if you're not willing to compete, to put your money where your mouth is, you won't be taken seriously.
Helen'skid
· 4 years ago
"In this paper we estimate consumer benefits from supercenter entry and expansion into markets for food. We estimate a discrete choice model for household shopping choice of supercenters and traditional outlets for food."
The words "we estimate" hardly stick out.
Who'd a'thunk it?
spencer
· 4 years ago
Walmart is being scapegoated for a lot of economic problems that are not WMT's fault.
Chris Meisenzahl
· 4 years ago
Wal-Mart bashing is really picking up a head of steam lately.
save_the_rustbelt
· 4 years ago
Consumers need Wal-Marts benefits.
Our economy has become quite adept at destroying $20-an-hour jobs and creating $9-an-hour jobs.
And how did Wal-Mart get special treatment from the Department of Labor? The best politicians money can buy.
Anonymous Coward
· 4 years ago
Why on earth would you link to a version of a paper behind a toll-access barrier? No one can read the NBER copy. The author's FREE copy of the paper is at
All Comments
Its interesting how the anti-Walmart folks have been able to set the terms of the debate. Here we have an article that defends the supercenters on the grounds that they benefit low-income households. True enough - but the best defense of Walmart is that it is making money. It does this by providing a service that its customers want. And yes, the shareholders are making money. That is what SHOULD happen when a corporation provides a service that its customers want. The answer to those who oppose Walmart is; if you don't like the way Walmart does business, then compete against it. Set up a non-profit big box operation that pays high wages and good benefits, and only buys and sells products made in America. Yes, this may be difficult. You think Sam Walton had it easy? He started small and kept building. Bottom line; if you're not willing to compete, to put your money where your mouth is, you won't be taken seriously.
"In this paper we estimate consumer benefits from supercenter entry and expansion into markets for food. We estimate a discrete choice model for household shopping choice of supercenters and traditional outlets for food."
The words "we estimate" hardly stick out.
Who'd a'thunk it?
Walmart is being scapegoated for a lot of economic problems that are not WMT's fault.
Wal-Mart bashing is really picking up a head of steam lately.
Consumers need Wal-Marts benefits.
Our economy has become quite adept at destroying $20-an-hour jobs and creating $9-an-hour jobs.
And how did Wal-Mart get special treatment from the Department of Labor? The best politicians money can buy.
Why on earth would you link to a version of a paper behind a toll-access barrier? No one can read the NBER copy. The author's FREE copy of the paper is at
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1243
You should always link to the author's free copy. Readers get no benefit from paying NBER US$ 5 for a peek that the author would like to give away.