Carol Platt Liebau: Wal-Mart Bashers: Either Dishonest or Dumb

Thursday, August 24, 2006

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?


Blogger Editor said...

Given enough funding from Wal-mart, I can statistically show anything they desire. Similar to ExxonMobile's campaign to confuse the public about global warming.

So how much did high paying US manufacturing or manufacturing sales rep jobs increase due to Wal-mart?

9:20 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, were you the one who dumped over my lemonaide stand, in the 5th grade?

9:26 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

Out of about 3,300 stores they choose 25 that gave them some decent statistics.

11:10 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor, is there anything about America that you don't hate?

11:17 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

Is Walmart America or just another global corporation with its employees so poorly paid, they live in poverty and become a burden to US tax payers.

11:33 AM  
Blogger gemma said...

having read editor's comments, I'm going with dishonest

12:09 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Sure Gemma, keep blaming your wieght problem on water. There's honesty for you.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Carol Platt Liebau said...

Beloved commenters:

Let's all be mindful of the rules against ad hominem (or ad feminam) attacks, please.

12:34 PM  
Blogger Editor said...


Sorry I must be dumb, delusional and dishonest.

1:20 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

It is not enough to look at the town where the WalMart is located. The locality might disproportionately benefit from increased consumer traffic and jobs.

You would also have to look at the impact on communities in the region from which WalMart draws its customers. Retailing 20 miles from the Walmart might suffer more than retailing two miles away.

I don't think that dumb and dishonest are the only choices in raising questions about the study cited.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Critics of Wal-Mart have argued that Wal-Mart indirectly incurs costs for federal social service programs, due to the low wages it pays its employees. A report by U.S. Democratic Party congressman George Miller argued that a 200-employee Wal-Mart store may indirectly cost federal taxpayers $420,750 to finance free-lunch and health-care programs for children of low-income Wal-Mart employees, tax credits for low-income families, and similar programs. [2]

3:27 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

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.

9:39 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Marshall Arts,

Why apologize now?

Not to worry Carol only has standards for liberal commenters. As a right-winger, Carol enjoys your nonsense however it does ruin her site:

Yeah. Dishonest. No, dumb. Well with eddy, it's hard to tell. Either works.

Libs, like the doufas above....

That's OK. While they bleat and whinney like dumb animals...

That would be you, nimrod.

Your a loser....

Apparently, he's an idiot....

But when you try to debate an idiot, eventually you end up frustrated from their inability to make sense.

Don't bother, putz....

"Moron". I have to admit to being a bit ashamed for having wasted time myself trying to debate someone so

editor, you're an idiot.

When you get out of Mom's basement and open your lemonade stand, you're free to pay your employees anything you like.

10:46 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

That's exactly what Sam Walton did over fourty years ago.

11:52 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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.

6:50 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

It is not surprising that the right thinks tax payers should subsidize social services for Walmart employees. Clearly the right is obedient to power whether it be the old Bible, the government or corporations. One day you'll wake up wondering why Chinese and others have it so good while you struggle to make ends meet and can't get health care.

Pretty obvious that none of you have any problem with Bush policies that moves the US from the number economic engine, to number three and gives Russia conrtol of the world oil.

7:34 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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.

7:55 AM  
Blogger Editor said...


I am correct. Tax payers are paying for social services for Walmart employees. I even knew a single mother who is going to college and worked at Walmart. Because her pay was so low she qualified for all sorts of government welfare; housing assistence, food stamps, child care, etc.

8:41 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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?

1:58 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor said,"I am correct. Tax payers are paying for social services for Walmart employees."

Correct, as the taxpayers pay for everyone's social services, regardless of who they work for!

5:28 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Nice going, eddy. Now read that list of my quotes on a daily basis. It'll save me time.

9:14 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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...)

12:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home