Economists calculate that because of its soaring efficiency, Wal-Mart singlehandedly reduced the overall cost of living in the U.S. by 3.1 percent. That amounts, on average, to $2,329 of extra cash available to every American family, every year.
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Karl Zinsmeister defends urban sprawl and Wal-Mart, saying that both are examples of ordinary choices by ordinary people:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Studies may have shown that having a walmart in the area is correlated to a decrease in prices of consumer goods; but, they have also shown that the presense of walmarts is correlated to increased poverty. Neither of these show a cause and effect relationship, however, it is possible for walmart to be the cause of both. Walmart could decrease the cost of living and decrease the average pay by even more (which, if you account for inflation, is the same as keeping costs the same and just decreasing pay or keeping pay the same and increasing costs, if you prefer). I'm not saying they actually do this, but it means that you have think about walmart more deeply then just saying they are more efficient and therefore good. They can increase the worlds wealth as a whole AND increase the inequity of wealth's distribution therby decreased the worlds net utility (given the fact that money matters most to those who have little of it). Same thing with sprawl - it has caused cities to try to be better, which is good, but it does more than just that. In short - this guy is dumb.
Have I told you about my thesis??? I'm writing it on the history of bacteriophage. It's an awesome Cold War story with excutions and such...I'll have to tell you more about it next time I join you guys for tennis or drinking...although it is a better thing to talk about when you are drinking... (:
Post a Comment