I am just getting back to this, had to go deal with real life. I appreciate the fact that you seem to be actually thinking about this, and am going to double check the point that I said I would check. After that, I will see if I can find you some numbers within a reasonable amount of time. HoweverI am not really sure that the numbers you are asking for are publicly available, and certainly many of the numbers that are out there have been calculated by sources whose impartiality is open to question.
But here is my answer in a nutshell. A lot of cities make deals to bring certain corporations to their area, yes. The idea is that more money in the local economy is a good thing. People who have jobs are putting money into the system, not taking out of it. Usually. In addition, they are spending money and this provides sales tax revenue and supports area businesses, who provide other jobs to other people who also spend their money in local stores. Here is the thing though. Yes, once you put up a WalMart, there are jobs at that WalMart. But the people who work there are still costing the taxpayers money, and are actually encouraged by the company to apply for public benefits. Meanwhile, the deep-discount pricing provides stiff competition to the local merchants, and forces them to cut costs to stay in business. The easiest costs to cut are employee health benefits, so the public price of the WalMart increases further. Some go out of business anyway, so the employess of the closed businesses are now on the dole. The jobs provided by WalMart are not all *additional* jobs. Perhaps none of them are. Taxes, sure, WalMart collects sales tax, just like the stores it replaces. Yes, its employees pay taxes, just like the employees of the businesses that closed. Only, since they earn a little less, they pay somewhat less in taxes. This is known as an opportunity cost -- the money lost because you have chosen A not B. Meanwhile the construction of the stores is often heavily subsidized, though bonds, allowing the company to pocket some portion of the sales tax collected, through deeds of land or otherwise. Some people suggest that one third of their construction is subsidized. This number is attributed to a WalMart executive, though I have not found the original quote in the few documents I have looked at. Even if this number is low though, and the studies I have posted so far are all careful to emphasize that they are erring on the side of caution if anything, these are subsidies that are not made available to mom and pop buinesses, whom most economic development writers agree are the single greatest generator of new jobs. So why would it be ok for a small business, me for example, to hire a kid at minimum wage and no health care when I don't think WalMart should do so? First of all, I wouldn't. But assuming I did, it would be because I was worried about commiting to a payroll, being small, with shaky assets and encertain revenues. Let's face it, WalMart has the resources to handle a few financial setbacks. Not to mention a point that everyone has missed up to now -- health care benefits for employees are a cost of doing business and are at least mostly if not completely tax-deductible. Sure, they are tax deductible for everyone but I think I speak for many small businesses here when I say that tax deductions are meaningless below a certain size :) So: 1> Health care for WalMart employees costs money, which is not paid by WalMart. 2> Land for WalMart stores is worth money and is often not paid for by WalMart. 3> The effect on the local economy of a WalMart store is often negative. 4> Taxes generated at a WalMart are arguably somewhat less than would have been generated by the stores it replaced. Meanwhile, consumers have access to cheap goods, yes, but the benefit of this is also debatable if the goods have a much shorter lifetime than those that could be bought elsewhere. None of the above even touches on the costs to the public purse of the litigation caused by the company's environmental practices, discrimination or wage and hour practices (over 40 complaints based on the company's own website). You are right in saying that the ultimate solution to this is for people to stop shopping there. In the meantime though, while the public is being educated, governments can stop putting food in the trough. Dana >But you haven't actually provided numbers that support that argument. > >You have shown where wal-mart makes deals, like many corporations do, >with cities to move their facilities into the area. However you haven't >shown where this has been a real problem. > >I also fail to understand how the state paying health care for wal-mart >employees isn't in any way subsidizing wal-mart, it is subsidizing >individuals that need a little help. And if I do accept this, then I >fail to understand why it is OK for some companies, but not OK for >wal-mart. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:12 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart >> >> they are individuals and none of them seems the least bit familiar >with >> economic theory. Whether they personally survived is irrelevant. I am >> making the following point: Subsidizing Wal-Mart is poor economic >policy. >> Ceasing to do so makes sense. >> >> ::shrug:: >> >> >Of the people that worked there on this list, they seem to disagree >with >> >you. >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192876 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
