Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Adventure is worthwhile - Aesop


The trackback URL for this entry is:


Prog-Mart

Yesterday in the WaPo, an op-ed column beautifully states a point that I have made here countless times, that the greatest beneficiaries of Wal-Mart’s success have been the poorest elements of society.

Wal-Mart’s critics allege that the retailer is bad for poor Americans. This claim is backward: As Jason Furman of New York University puts it, Wal-Mart is “a progressive success story.” Furman advised John “Benedict Arnold” Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart’s discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart’s products.

These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart’s “every day low prices” make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart’s $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.

Set against these savings for consumers, Wal-Mart’s alleged suppression of wages appears trivial. Arindrajit Dube of the University of California at Berkeley, a leading Wal-Mart critic, has calculated that the firm has caused a $4.7 billion annual loss of wages for workers in the retail sector. This number is disputed: Wal-Mart’s pay and benefits can be made to look good or bad depending on which other firms you compare them to. When Wal-Mart opened a store in Glendale, Ariz., last year, it received 8,000 applications for 525 jobs, suggesting that not everyone believes the pay and benefits are unattractive.

But let’s say we accept Dube’s calculation that retail workers take home $4.7 billion less per year because Wal-Mart has busted unions and generally been ruthless. That loss to workers would still be dwarfed by the $50 billion-plus that Wal-Mart consumers save on food, never mind the much larger sums that they save altogether. Indeed, Furman points out that the wage suppression is so small that even its “victims” may be better off. Retail workers may take home less pay, but their purchasing power probably still grows thanks to Wal-Mart’s low prices.

Read the whole thing.  Suffice it to say that it’s vindication for a position I’ve held for a long time.  If Wal-Mart were to go away tomorrow, the poorest in society would have to start paying higher prices for food and clothing, the essentials of life.  Even if there isn’t a Wal-Mart in their immediate area, the very fact that Wal-Mart exists forces other retailers to keep their prices lower.  Wal-Mart is the best thing that ever happened to the poor in America.  It’s too bad that the left is so blinded by its hatred of corporations that it can’t see this obvious fact.

Posted by Lee on 11/29/05 at 07:40 AM in Politics • Permalink

Trackbacks:

<< Back to main