Nick, I found this as I was closing windows. It may be the calculation you were asking about. It's a little better, in terms of statistics, than I can do. Larry may critique it for us if we ask nicely. Anyway, here is the url and the conclusion. I sort of mumble to myself about some of your comments after than, inline below.
Dana http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PovertyResearchWM.pdf After carefully and comprehensively accounting for other local determinants of poverty, we find that the presence of Wal-Mart unequivocally raised family poverty rates in US counties during the 1990s relative to places that had no such stores. This was true not only as a consequence of existing stores in a county in 1987, but it was also an independent outcome of the location of new stores between 1987 and 1998. The question whether the cost of relatively higher poverty in a county is offset by the benefits of lower prices and wider choices available to consumers associated with a Wal-Mart store cannot be answered here. However, if Wal-Mart does contribute to a higher poverty rate, then it is not bearing the full economic and social costs of its business practices. Instead, Wal-Mart transfers income from the working poor and from taxpayers though welfare-programs directed at the poor to stockholders and the heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune, as well as to consumers. These transfers are in addition to the public infrastructure subsidies often provided by local communities. Regardless of the distributional effects, the Wal-Mart business model appears to extract cumulative rents that exceed those earned by owners of other corporations, including Microsoft. -- ah now, I might be ok with going on profit not size if that's the objection. I am imputing profit from size but ok, if we just say "companies that can clearly afford it" does it seem like a better idea? >Sure, but they are doing so in a way the singles out companies based on >size. Not profit. I'm ok, not happy, but ok with states that tax on a >stepped level. If they want to go this route, I wouldn't have as big a >problem with it. I'd still have a problem with it. Cough medicine kicking in. I dunno what I think of that. If it's the same company does it matter? >Yeah, but not huge, and the economic impacts that are negative may be >more associated with the ones not subsidized. --snip-- Plenty of them here too. But is this a benefit, hmm. >Some items, yes, but after shipping charges, generally not in my >experience, but there are still plenty of people that don't buy online >because they don't have a computer, don't have internet access, won't >use credit cards, and so on. At least in this state. yeah. I can see the reasoning for the disposable shoe. I have done things not in my economic interest because they were cheaper today. Is this a benefit exactly though, I am not sure. >I know the dance shoe argument because my wife used to work at a dance >store (tap, ballet, etc). They lost business because wal-mart started >selling a lower grade of the same brand they were selling. To the >average mom the only difference they could find was in the price, nearly >half. To the trained eye, there was a big difference. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192906 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
