The item from NCSU isn't a study, it is an opinion. The only stats that he uses point to jobs, claiming that wal-mart created 100 new jobs, while 70 were lost in other retail and warehouse jobs. The other stat I could find was based on California, stating that wal-mart workers earn 31% less than other retail in California.
California is very hard to judge, the highs are very high, and the lows can be very low. In SF alone they have more than 30k grocery store clerks. In the end the guy concludes with this: To a very large extent, whether a new Wal-Mart is a "good" or "bad" thing for an individual depends on which of these varied impacts are most strongly relevant to that individual. That basically each store is a case by case basis, that some are good, some are bad. > -----Original Message----- > From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:13 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > I think I answered this in the last post. A couple of things -- I went > back and looked at the California study and though I think it strongly > implies that there's a net cost, it does not say that the 2 billion dollar > cost is net, no. > > Here's a recent study of WalMart's economic effect that looks fairly > impartial: > > http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/novdec05.pdf > > Note however, that it does not take the cost of the subsidies or the > prosecutions into account. > > Dana > > > >But there hasn't been any actual proof that a bad deal was made to begin > >with. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192887 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
