New research suggests that the company makes the communities it operates in poorer—even taking into account its famous low prices.
Summary
Two studies reveal that Walmart’s entry into communities lowers household incomes by 6% over 10 years and increases poverty by 8%, even when accounting for cost savings.
Its practices, such as undercutting competitors, suppressing wages, and squeezing suppliers, harm local economies by reducing employment and forcing smaller businesses to close.
Walmart’s “monopsony power” enables it to pay lower wages and dominate suppliers, compounding these effects.
The findings challenge the idea that low prices alone benefit communities, emphasizing long-term economic harm.
The frustrating thing is: Sometimes the same economists who do these studies tend to magically forget their own findings a week later when they are interviewed by some news channel about what the government should do about x or y. Because they can't live with the fact that some of the base principles and beliefs of their own school of thought are deeply flawed.
Or, more likely the economic incentives that they are exposed to (academia, grants and the politics of both) reward this behaviour.
The principals are understood, I remember reading about similar issues with the Dutch East India Company (you know that recent company that just went under in 1799) back in school. The reason we are where we are is that people (economists often try to say otherwise, but are included in this set) in the system we have are incentivised to not actually change things, but to come up with reasons why they should stay this way.
Another quality-of-life lowering thing caused by Walmart/Amazon that's obvious but they didn't go into, is that once Walmart and Amazon have eliminated so many local businesses, everyone is forced to shop at them. Even if we don't want to, we have nowhere else to go--we can't just boycott them and still get stuff we need.
Walmart decides what you will and won't have access to buy. They've pared down the variety of brands and offer a subset of items by those brands minimum, for their efficiency of ordering and stocking items, including groceries. Then the brands stop making the items that Walmart decided not to stock, so they're gone. There are still a few other grocery stores but most have them have merged into a few mega-grocery chains with the same issues as with Walmart.
So even if you're OK with going to Walmart your choices are limited (those of us old enough to remember things we used to be able to buy that are long gone these days may notice this more). So what it's come down to is you get what Walmart offers you, or you order it from Amazon or Temu. There are still a few places to get real things of good quality, but they're harder to find, never local stores, so you have to order online sight unseen, and of course it's an expensive and time-consuming process compared to being able to just go to the store and grab something.
Walmart encourages their employees to apply for federal and state programs like food stamps because they don't give their employees enough hours and give them weird shifts making it hard to even have another job.
Walmart is one of the largest welfare queens in the country. They profit off of poverty, and are actively incentivized to not only keep communities poor, but to make them poor.
Yes to the first part, but the second part is just how businesses work? If your gross income is lower than your expenses you're operating at a loss and it's not sustainable. Wages should absolutely be higher, though. Quick back-of-the-napkin math shows that last year Walmart made a net profit of over 11 billion dollars and employed just over 2 million people. They could boost every single employee's pay by $5000 annually and still make a billion dollars in profit.
More than half of Walmart's employees are on food stamps or some other form of government assistance. So along with everything else, our tax money goes to pay their employees because they won't.
I call that a tax break, paying shit wages, AND ruining the local area by making everybody more poor all rolled into one because Walmart employees often shop at Walmart for their employee discount (because they can't afford to shop elsewhere on their poor wages), meaning that their wages go right back into the company's coffers right alongside our tax dollars.
I guess technically they pay the company that designed the self checkouts then pay their upkeep in electricity and maintaince. But just you wait for the AI self check outs. It will become self aware and start taking a cut for itself to buy memecoins.
I wonder what an ideal structure is that does the opposite. I know the obvious "small business" etc, but like as policy what structure would make a populace more wealthy?
Just going for small business doesn't work, either. You need some greater percentage of employees than you do business owners. There has to be a point where you reach a critical mass where there is no longer a sufficient labor pool if everybody is trying to be an entrepreneur / small business owner.
Stop vertical integration (ban the fuck out of it) and give anti monopoly laws teeth. The reason Walmart at the like can do this is by making themselves the only real choice for the poor (and then making everyone poorer).
Edit: also to add things like walmart hold suppliers over a barrel so if you ban the vertical bullshit you also give the companies supplying walmart more ability to ask for more.
If an outside Corp comes in displacing local business, the profits that would cycle back into that community now get taken out. It doesn't matter what the prices are, when the community as a whole has less money with each transaction.
Thank you for pointing this out. When you shop small locally-owned businesses, the money is often directly reinjected into local economies. The money you spend at locally businesses puts a girl through ballet lessons instead of putting dollars towards a new yacht. And the ballet company is owned by your neighbor.
If people really want to fight income inequality, stop giving your money to billionaires everywhere you can.
Hypotheses that make sense at face value are dime a dozen in economics. Some of Milton Friedman's hypotheses on inflation made sense but were proven wrong. Nevertheless they were used for decades to drive policy with horrible impact on the working class. Lots of people still believe they're true, because they make sense at face value.
It's trade balance and it's very well proven. If the money coming into a community is less than the money going out then that's going to affect everything from road repair to groceries bought.
This is why at the international level there are balance payments in trade deals.
In part.
That's one of the long term goals. But tariffs have short term economic effects, and political effects that also need to be taken into account.
Tariffs are more complicated.
I was buying camping equipment from walmart. They were out of some of my supplies and a new tent I wanted. I ordered alternative items from a online store and they were so much higher quality than the ones at walmart. Walmart squeezes its suppliers so much you end up with items that are more cheaply made. I've tested this on several different items and have discovered that walmart sources many of their brands straight from china. You can buy the same cheap shit from temu.
Theres literally documentaries from 2010 about manufacturers who make a "Walmart version" because Walmart demands these factories make them at a specific price.
Like in one documentary, the same toaster from Target and Walmart, the Walmart one had different cheaper parts inside. TVs, furniture, lamps. Even the plastic storage containers like totes and Tupperware had "Walmart" versions that were real flimsy.
Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn’t just incompatible with Snapper’s future – Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper’s health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn’t in the price, it’s in the performance and the longevity.
Later in 2013, Briggs & Stratton decided to start selling Snapper in Walmarts again. 2014, Briggs & Stratton closed a Snapper plant. They then had to restructure and other corporate BS, so fuck around and find out. Publicly traded company garbage.
Low prices AND low value. The cheap ass shit they sell is intended to break and be replaced as quickly as possible. E.g. cheap clothes that wear out quickly. Those who can't afford better are thus trapped in a cycle of repeat buying.
Indeed. And worse, wealthy get a discount on everything - an obvious example being that f you have lots of money you don't need to get a car loan or even a mortgage. More likely you are the one, indirectly, making the loans and earning interest for the huge effort you expended being wealthy.
Makes sense. Take 10 small businesses with a owner/manager and say 5 employees. 50 employees. Local convenience store, small grocer, whatever. Not all at min wage, the owner/manager are going to be making a bit more. WalMart rolls in, kills those businesses, now you have four overworked managers managing 40 overworked employees at bottom dollar wages. The other 16 had to go find something else or get welfare services or whatver.
A very simplified version, but I could see how this brings down wages.
If the majority of Walmart shoppers and employees are MAGAts, then carry on shopping there and I hope they stay loyal while Mango Mussolini drives prices through the ceiling fan with shit spraying all over the place.