Boston Mayor's Wal-Mart Jihad
“Wal-Mart does not suit the clientele we have in the city of Boston. I don’t need employers like that in our city.”
From Michael Graham in The Boston Herald:
"Will Mayor Tom Menino save Boston’s poorest families from the scourge of . . . everyday low prices? Yes, the wolves of Wal-Mart are again at the city’s door. They want to spend millions building a store, hiring construction workers and creating hundreds of permanent jobs. No wonder the mayor hates them.
"Will Mayor Tom Menino save Boston’s poorest families from the scourge of . . . everyday low prices? Yes, the wolves of Wal-Mart are again at the city’s door. They want to spend millions building a store, hiring construction workers and creating hundreds of permanent jobs. No wonder the mayor hates them.
I’d love to hear the mayor explain to Boston’s blue-collar families why it’s better for them to stay unemployed than to let Wal-Mart come to town and hire them. I’d also like to hear the mayor explain to struggling families why the falling food prices that arrive with every Wal-Mart are a bad thing. Why they can’t enjoy the 20 percent to 30 percent drop in the cost of necessities that communities often experience when Wal-Mart arrives.
In 2008, when food costs surged, Wal-Mart dramatically cut its prices. In 2009, when unemployment spiked, Wal-Mart added more than 22,000 workers. Those mean-spirited bastards!
If Wal-Mart opens in Boston, poor people will win. They will have access to new jobs, cheaper food and increased economic choices. But since when has helping poor people been Menino’s priority? In 2008 he turned down CVS’s request to open “minute clinics” here, providing cheap health care in some of Boston’s neediest communities. Why did Menino oppose it?
“Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong,” Menino told CVS — a company whose entire business is selling medicine to sick people.
Effete Boston liberals hate Wal-Mart, the unions hate Wal-Mart, and so Menino does, too. And if that means poor families struggle to find work or buy food, well . . ."
MP: Maybe Boston's mayor should pay closer attention to what happened in Chicago when Wal-Mart opened a store there - the neighborhood became safer, it attracted 22 new stores and businesses to the area, it created hundreds of new jobs at Wal-Mart, and also helped to generate a net increase of hundreds of new jobs in the neighborhood at other stores and businesses. AND that's not even counting the fact that local consumers have saved thousands, if not millions, of dollars from Wal-Mart's "Everyday Low Prices."
HT: Richard Spillane
HT: Richard Spillane
18 Comments:
This is why I believe many liberal democrat politicians aren't interested in helping the poor help themselves.
Liberal democrat politicians are interested in helping unions-their political sugar daddies-and expanding government programs.
If a union job or a government program isn't involved, they're not interested. People can't be allowed to help themselves.
The poor are a convenient pretext for achieving other objectives.
"The poor are a convenient pretext for achieving other objectives"...
Yeah bob wright, I do believe you have a point there...
This Menino moron obviously has no sense of shame since there's now no way this 'dog & pony' show can look good for him...
Again an incident like this makes me question the collective intelligence and education of Boston/Massachusetts citizens...
It seems like everything liberal Democrats and their allies the progressives try to push is doomed to devolving into a an expensive debacle (expensive to taxpayers and consumers) like their idiotic attempt into green energy...
You know, all BS aside, it would be interesting to see what actually happens to overall local revenues in cities where WallMart "comes to town".
Remember the NSA interview in Good Will Hunting: Work for the NSA, provide support for Jihaidst, gov't sends military, buddy is in the army and killed by an IED...
You can make a similar argument against WallMart, just don't know if its remotely correct or true (but it feels true!); WallMart arrives to town, but lives on the edge, so pays little or no taxes, it employs low skill low pay locals, but no full time jobs (so no benefits) local merchants go bust, because they cannot compete with WallMart, city looses tax base as local business are priced out of business, total revenues fall.
It feels right, but is probably wrong, yet I remain surprised that no study was done. There has to be many many medium sized cities where WallMart came to town...
Inquiring minds want to know
Inquiring minds need to look at a previous and recent posting by Professor Mark...
"“Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong,” Menino told CVS — a company whose entire business is selling medicine to sick people."
you have to be kidding me. what's the alternative, a government aspirin dispensary? you want expensive aspirin, that's the way to get it.
Massachusetts was founded by communists (the pilgrims). at least john winthrop had the sense to give it up after a few years of repeated failure.
shame that the current batch of leaders does not have that much sense.
Morganovich
Inquiring minds still want to know. Again, picking facts as they feel right, Wal Mart created jobs in specific area of a city, but did they lead to the destruction in other parts...
I get the picture, in a previous dangerous part of town Wal-Mart acted as an anchor tenant... but that was not my question.
Rigorous analysis, means rigorous analysis.
Not a fan of Walmart, but I don't think I like where this guy is going. What sort of employers are acceptable to him? Union supporting employers? Employers that send him with dollars?
frozen in the north-
you are leaving something out of your analysis:
when a consumer save $1 buying a bathmat at walmart, that's an extra dollar he has to spend somewhere else.
so sure, it might hurt you if you are "bob's bathmat boutique" but it helps you if you are "bob's burger shack".
the same amount of money gets spent in a community and people get more for it. that is a net gain no matter how you slice it.
you are just looking at those who lose out due to walmart's competition and somehow calling them the good guys for charging higher prices.
this is a common practice because the "harm" is concentrated on a few folks and the benefit is spread out among many, but the inescapable fact is that the consumers of a city benefit more from reduced prices than former providers are harmed.
think about it.
mathematically, this must always be so. it's pretty much the same reason that free trade always provides a net benefit. expensive local providers are essentially just imposing a tarring and demanding to have competition stifled so that they may benefit at consumers expense.
also:
go read this:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/02/wal-mart-deserves-2011-nobel-peace.html
seems walmart did not (as was claimed so loudly in chicago beforehand) destroy the neighborhood or the economy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
finally -
you are also playing a bit of a rhetorical game here.
you cannot ever really prove what you are asking. the economy of a city or a region is too complex for that and there is really no accurate way to measure the harm/benefit by counting it all up.
but aren't you asking the wrong question?
this is a free country with free commerce.
you don't tell people they cannot open a store because they cannot prove it does not do harm.
even if we accept such a questionable standard, the burden of proof is on those who would impose the ban.
so can you show us with "rigorous analysis" that walmart has done the harm you fear?
absent that, there is really no discussion to have.
you don't ban sales of stoves because people might burn themselves.
“Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong,” Menino told CVS.
Yes, I am an idiot, so can someone explain to me how a typical doctor's office isn't a retailer making money off of sick people.
Oh, wait...maybe it's the mayor of Boston who's a complete idiot.
I would have to agree that having "a" job is better than having "no" job at all if ever so slightly. We all like a bargain right....and the Walton family brought the US people bargains galore. However the bigger problem is "it caught on" and now everyone wants a bargain. So what did companies do for the last 20 years or more? They all brought bargains to America. To do that though you have to have cheap labor. Can't pay the wage of an American...no sir we need to outsource. That way we maxize profits and cut costs. Right but very wrong. Now the future generation can look forward to jobs that pay 20K per year instead of 30-40K. Sounds good on the surface except there is this one little problem? It is called a devalued dollar which buys less and inflationary effects causing you to pay more for less. If the standard of living is to be upheld the way it has been then the Walmarts of the world are not a good thing. If you want a higher wage then produce quality products like Germany...leave the bargain basement deals for the Chinese. Maybe China should revalue its dollar or is it simply ok to keep giving itself an unfair exporting advantage while the rest of the world pays for it with outsourced jobs. These corporations are not evil they are just profit driven and personally I have drown accustomed to decent paying jobs and I would like to think it will be there for my children too....so given the choice of building more Walmarts or having the Chinese bring thier standard of living up a little which means higher wages I will choose the later. You might aleviate some unemployment problems in the short term but in the long term you will make your own standard of living much worse.
Wal-Mart's history of gender discrimination, one case of a supervisor whipping an employee with the jeans she was sewing for sale in Wal-Mart...there are many reasons not to like WMT, not even touching upon Unions. Their wages end where CostCo's begin ($10-11/hr & non-union btw).
Frozen in the North is right on the beam... that is exactly what happens. The uptick is this ... and take a moment to get your head around it ... in the store (that will replace your towns economic ecosystem) there will be a sign that says how much this store has 'donated' back to the local community. Gone will be the days when the locally owned pharmacy made a contribution of a few thousand dollars to a local charity ... the sign will soon read in the millions. These stores turn (on average) 150,000 dollars a day profit. Not only that, do you know that the money will never even go into one of your local banks overnight? He mentions the fact that there will be a shortage of 'full time' positions meaning 'no benefits'. WM has focused on global markets for the last 5-10 years but is now turning to hard sell the places they have been kept out of over here. They'll ask for tax breaks. They'll require works upgrades. What good neighbors they will be... Sam Walton's ideals passed away with him ... beware.
Frozen in the North is right on the beam. He didn't mention all the tax breaks and works upgrades they will ask for before starting their project. He did mention the fact that very few jobs will be full time ... meaning no benefits.
In the store (the one that will be replacing your towns economic ecosystem) will be a sign that states how much money 'this store' has given back to the community and the amount will be obscene. Gone will be the days when the local family owned pharmacy made the paper giving several thousand to a local cause. The WM store will give millions (it will effectually be propping up your community to cover the fact it has destroyed your community's economy). The average WM big box earns around 140,000 dollars a day profit. And did you know that that money will never spend even a single night in one of your local banks? They are able to lose money on every item in that store for months to be able to put a pesky rival out of business ... and they will. Don't know anything about Mr Menino or his reasons; do know that keeping WM out is the best thing for your community.
@Mitchster:
1) Asking for tax breaks and works upgrades and getting them demonstrate a problem of government and not the private sector; other companies seek tax breaks as well. Perhaps the taxes are too high!
2) As long as Walmart's job classficiations draw prospective employees, generally of the low-experience type, what's wrong with it? Would you prefer there be fewer jobs?
3) Giving back to the community is called corporate social responsibility. I don't like it, but it should keep the likes of you happy.
4) Should you put all your money into a local bank? What if there are better interest rates elsewhere?
5) Losing money on every item for months sounds like the antithesis of any company's desire for profit. How can a store make 140k profit per day by losing money continually?
All I know is that after watching the video on Walmart it changed my perspective on the entirety of this company. Before passing judgment people should see the video and consider the atrocities within it. I think Menino is making the right choice. We need to preserve our community by saying no to people and companies that profit from using other people. Just see the video...
Post a Comment
<< Home