New research suggests that the company makes the communities it operates in poorer—even taking into account its famous low prices.
The summaries in the article don’t make these papers sound very convincing. My main objection is to the idea that places where locals prevented a Walmart from opening are a good control group for places where a Walmart did open. Not every community has the capability for the sort of activism it would take to prevent a Walmart from opening. Those communities that do have this capability are probably stronger than those that don’t in other ways too.
They may be, but the point was that Walmart chose all the places in both groups, so whatever criteria Walmart was using, is what was controlled for. IOW Walmart’s criteria viewed them the same.
Makes sense, the wealth isn’t staying wherever the Walmart is, it’s going to the family that owns them all.
Money that would have otherwise ended up more locally, with businesses that would have paid and supported their workers better.
This logic applies to every corporation. There’s nothing unique about what the Walton’s are doing.
Watch The High Cost of Low Price it’s way worse than most people know
