How many people actually earn the minimum wage?

[Economist]

No, but I addressed it anyway in post #47. I am not for or against Wal-Mart, but you have left me with the feeling that you form your opinion based on that article. In my opinion it is deficient for the purpose to which it is being put. You ought to post a better one.

I don't think that "proves" Wal-Mart is "good." However, I honestly do think that Wal-Mart is a "good" company that's done more for poor people than any current politician has done or will do. But that's an not opinion that's based on this article. By the way, I don't wish to make this post mainly about Wal-Mart either.

Millions of people smoke tobacco. I can't see that as an argument that tobacco is good.

Tobacco is not "good," but that doesn't mean that smokers' don't get some sort of benefit from it. In other words, just because it's bad doesn't mean it's irrational. For example, alcohol is not good for me, but I enjoy drinking it and do so several times a week (and I imagine I am not alone). Likewise, I don't smoke marijuana but I imagine many people (probably even on this board) do. Marijuana is not good for you, but that doesn't mean that people who smoke it are irrational, because there is some personal enjoyment or satisfaction derived from using this substance. My point is, people do many unhealthy and dangerous things, probably because they derive some enjoyment from them, and they're willing to "pay the price" for that enjoyment.

 

[Economist]

In other words, did Walmart add 300-400 jobs or did they trade which 300-400 people were without jobs? And if they did trade which 300-400 people were without jobs, were the Walmart jobs at least better than the 300-400 jobs that were lost?

As is, the article doesn't really give a good picture of whether Walmart brought more good jobs to town or whether the town just has a horribly depressed economy. And I agree bringing any kind of jobs is a good thing if it's really adding new jobs.

The main argument for Wal-Mart being "good" is not about jobs. The main argument is that they are able to provide goods cheaply, which improves their shoppers standard of living (because they get "more bang for their buck").

I don't really have time to say anything more because I got to go, but I'll be back on later to discuss it.

 

[denverdoc]

Wal-Mart is an abomination-myriad studies demonstrate the same phenomenon--an increase in unempolyment rate, coupled with a loss of mom/pop biz-neses. Prices may drop for one particular shopper, but the community is left bereft. References to such abound, and WM likely spends more in PR and defense money to lawers than its next three or four competitors combined. Under threat of violence I will shop there, but just barelt

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Heck I'd probably vote for you for city mayor and support a decision by you to hinder Walmart given your demonstrated desire to get to the facts.

I hereby rescind all that I wrote. If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

 

[denverdoc]

Wal-Mart is an abomination-myriad studies demonstrate the same phenomenon--an increase in unempolyment rate, coupled with a loss of mom/pop biz-neses. Prices may drop for one particular shopper, but the community is left bereft. References to such abound, and WM likely spends more in PR and defense money to lawyers than its next three or four competitors combined. Under threat of violence I will shop there, but just barely.

 

[mheslep]

I hereby rescind all that I wrote. If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

Ok Tecumseh, but that's a loss for the country.