Survey says ...
... Wal-Mart means higher poverty.
The study -- Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty -- written by Stephan Goetz, a professor of agricultural and regional economics at Pennsylvania State University, and Hema Swaminathan for the International Center for Research on Women, was published in the latest issue of Social Science Quarterly.
Authors, Goetz and Swaminathan write that the presence of Wal-Mart was "unequivocally associated" with smaller reductions in family-poverty rates in counties nationwide during the 1990s relative to places that had no stores.
During the last decade, dependence on the food stamp program nationwide increased by 8 percent, while in counties with Wal-Mart stores the increase was almost twice as large at 15.3 percent, according to the study. Although Wal-Mart employs many people living in its communities, for most, the hours worked and the wages paid do not help these families transition out of poverty, the study said.
But I bet the researchers didn't consider how many more Little Debbies poor folks can buy when there's a Wal-Mart nearby.



Comments
What's their new slogan? "Save more. Live better. " Some crap like that. It's like the Bush admin.: all PR and no fact.
Posted by: Classified | May 17, 2006 02:30 PM
I don't know if you've got the chicken, the egg, or the point.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all we had to do was close the wal-mart and watch all of those high paying jobs rush to town.
Is this what passes for logic? Poverty is about, education, deferred gratification, self esteem, and yes, opportunity, amoung other things.
Should Wal-mart be a good corporate citizen and raise prices and the standard of living of their employees? Sure. Is it really that simple? Not a chance.
Posted by: delbert | May 17, 2006 02:37 PM
Capitalism without a conscience will be the ruin of democracy.
Corporations have more power than citizens, and therefore should be more accountable for doing the right thing.
Instead, they get carte blanche to make all the money they can, while using a smidgen of it to buy a friendly government.
Posted by: Roland | May 17, 2006 03:21 PM
"ya don't have to be eat up with brilliance to understand this" Congress Marion Berry.
Wonder how the Wal-Martian newly hired spin doctors are going to attack this research.
"Is it really that simple"?
No it's not. Until the American people understand that THEY are subsidising Wal-Mart employees food, shelter and healtcare, nothing will change.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 03:31 PM
I'm no WalMart fan but all of you that are trying to link up WalMart with Bush need to remember who was on the Board of WalMart---Hillary Baby. They contributed a bit of money to Bubba's campaign as well.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 03:36 PM
And Wal Mart is giving lots to Beebe, too. Is it true what they say about laying down with dogs?
Posted by: Bedfellows | May 17, 2006 07:16 PM
This type of complaint reminds me of the Neo-cons blaming everything they don' t like on Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Cato | May 17, 2006 09:25 PM
Hillary indeed served on WalMart's Board for 6 years. Unlike Dubya, she studies, she learns, she changes her mind. She wised up and now speaks out against their practices.
90% of WalMart's political contributions are to Republicans.
Remember that next time you pull into their parking lot. Remember that when you look into the faces of their employees. Remember that when you buy their foreign made goods, using near slave labor. Remember that when you see your local stores boarded up. Remember that when you pay your taxes and think about their loopholes, and how your tax dollars pay for their employees' health benefits and food stamps.
The evil giant lives on, because you support it every time you shop there.
Posted by: Paula | May 17, 2006 09:31 PM
Paula, I haven't shopped Wal-Mart in about ten years, but I'll never forget when a former co-worker complained to their customer service department concerning a billing dispute. The next day, they contacted our employer, saying that he had gotten "out of hand." He was upset that they did this, of course, but he continued to shop there. Like many, he's a hopeless idiot, and he deserves what he gets.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 10:01 PM
I'm not a social scientist so perhaps it's not surprising that I can't make much sense of this correlation.
I'm not sure that many "mom and pop" businesses raise their employees out of poverty, unless of course the employee is Junior. But when Mom and Pop have had enough and retire, potential community leader Junior does have to find a better berth elsewhere.
Of course, some of the money Mom and Pop made probably stayed in the community. Conversely, Wal Mart's profits hit the road before daylight.
As one poster intimated, the issue is not that simple.
"But I bet the researchers didn't consider how many more Little Debbies poor folks can buy when there's a Wal-Mart nearby."
Not many. The price difference on many food items is pennies unless you are comparing it to the neigborhood convenience store. In many cases, W-M is higher. This is particulary true in the produce aisles. Weighing the fact that other stores run sales and Wal Mart does not, my impression is that overall the prices at other stores are as good or better. It makes me want to see a return of the old market basket surveys that used to run in the 70s.
(Incidently service is far better at non-W-M stores. How many times have you checked out of a store and the only thing the clerk said to you was "$78.53"? Beyond that, I usually find that I have to argue about the price of at least one item when checking out at W-M. It's usually only pocket change but I'm stubborn.)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 10:14 PM
Thanks for the post, anon.
I have boycotted WM for years, along with all my extended family, to say nothing of our extended church families.
We think we are costing them close to a million dollars a year in sales. A drop in the bucket, to be sure, but it makes us feel better.
And for all the WM supporters:
Compare prices on 100 items and shop around - they do not have lowest prices!
Posted by: Paula | May 18, 2006 12:00 AM
It appears that Hillary quit the board of directors of Wal Mart about the time that Sam died. That's when his children took over. They started cutting out the Made in America theme, going with buying more goods from China and instituting all the other practices that have made them pariahs to so many these days.
So, it looks like Hillary quit when things were begining to go badly, because the Walton children took over. Says a lot about her principles, actually, and raises my estimation of her.
Posted by: rablib | May 18, 2006 03:10 AM
RE: criticizing me for "linking" Bush to Wal-Mart, when all I did was compare tactics. This is Republican logic. Putting words in my mouth, bringing Hillary out of nowhere into the debate, and ignoring that Wal-Mart is all about donating to Republicans, as someone helpfully pointed out.
Ignorance is bliss until the whole world hates you for murdering hundreds of thousands of citizens.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2006 10:17 AM
RE: criticizing me for "linking" Bush to Wal-Mart, when all I did was compare tactics. This is Republican logic. Putting words in my mouth, bringing Hillary out of nowhere into the debate, and ignoring that Wal-Mart is all about donating to Republicans, as someone helpfully pointed out.
Ignorance is bliss until the whole world hates you for murdering hundreds of thousands of citizens.
Posted by: Classified | May 18, 2006 10:21 AM
So Hillary can engage in the same kind of activities that you so readily criticize Repubs for but she is ok because she grows and learns. She learns ok. She learns where the money is.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 18, 2006 02:49 PM