Wal-Mart not as good for economy as it seems
Justin Hunt
Issue date: 11/4/09 Section: Viewpoints
Finding part-time or even full-time jobs in a small town like Martin, Tennessee can be quite difficult. A few years ago, Wal-Mart opened one of its supercenters here in Martin, and suddenly many college students found a place of employment. Many would say that's a good thing. Or is it? Few take the time to examine the effects of a store like Wal-Mart coming into their community.
In his autobiography Sam Walton wrote, "Wal-Mart will not put a store in a community where it is not wanted." Is this still Wal-Mart's policy? The entire world faces this giant superstore. In fact, Wal-Mart is almost impossible to escape. So is Wal-Mart bad? Is it good? Is it neither? Could Wal-Mart, despite some theories, actually boost local economies and, overall, be beneficial to smaller communities?
Obviously, Wal-Mart has not always been the market-dominating superstore it is today. But since Wal-Mart's humble beginnings, its growth rate has revealed quite fascinating figures. In the U.S. there are over 3,440 Wal-Mart stores, and scattered throughout the rest of the world, Wal-Mart has opened over 2,750 stores. As you might imagine, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the United States with over $285.2 billion in annual sales, and it is the largest private employer with over 1.2 million workers.
Organized opponents of Wal-Mart suggest that Wal-Mart destroys local economies, abuses it workers with low wages and paltry benefits and Wal-Mart stores drive up urban sprawl.
An article entitled "Why Wal-Mart is Good," published in a July 2005 issue of Maclean's Magazine, revealed a survey conducted at Ryerson University with results that indicated a Wal-Mart store does, in fact, boost local economies. The Ryerson University survey sampled over 2,000 communities with results that showed a Wal-Mart in rural areas had an average commercial boost of $74.1 million, and an average of 16 new stores sprouted in the community once the Wal-Mart opened. In fact, the study showed that before a customer even begins shopping at a new Wal-Mart, the store has already put as much as $20 million into the local economy.
In his autobiography Sam Walton wrote, "Wal-Mart will not put a store in a community where it is not wanted." Is this still Wal-Mart's policy? The entire world faces this giant superstore. In fact, Wal-Mart is almost impossible to escape. So is Wal-Mart bad? Is it good? Is it neither? Could Wal-Mart, despite some theories, actually boost local economies and, overall, be beneficial to smaller communities?
Obviously, Wal-Mart has not always been the market-dominating superstore it is today. But since Wal-Mart's humble beginnings, its growth rate has revealed quite fascinating figures. In the U.S. there are over 3,440 Wal-Mart stores, and scattered throughout the rest of the world, Wal-Mart has opened over 2,750 stores. As you might imagine, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the United States with over $285.2 billion in annual sales, and it is the largest private employer with over 1.2 million workers.
Organized opponents of Wal-Mart suggest that Wal-Mart destroys local economies, abuses it workers with low wages and paltry benefits and Wal-Mart stores drive up urban sprawl.
An article entitled "Why Wal-Mart is Good," published in a July 2005 issue of Maclean's Magazine, revealed a survey conducted at Ryerson University with results that indicated a Wal-Mart store does, in fact, boost local economies. The Ryerson University survey sampled over 2,000 communities with results that showed a Wal-Mart in rural areas had an average commercial boost of $74.1 million, and an average of 16 new stores sprouted in the community once the Wal-Mart opened. In fact, the study showed that before a customer even begins shopping at a new Wal-Mart, the store has already put as much as $20 million into the local economy.
Be the first to comment on this story