With all due respect,the study compares apple and oranges, Mr. Nicklaus. Critics charge, rightly, that Wal-Mart destroys the economies of smaller towns. The pro-Wal-Mart study examines not the towns involved, but the counties.

When we moved to Pacific in 1993, Wal-Mart was the main general merchandise store in town (There was one Dollar General). Wal-Mart left circa 1996, and no incentive, TIF proposal, or any other perk could get another similar general merchandise store in town in the 12 years since. Now, we’re in Franklin County. One could cite the staggering growth of retail in the town of Washington 12 miles away(they just got a Hyper-Wal-Mart, Kohls, big Penneys, super Schnucks and heaven knows what else in the same time period) as being “great growth in the county”. Sullivan, 30 miles away, has exploded, too. But it doesn’t do us any good, except lessen our chances to get anything bigger than another Dollar General. I, quite proudly, managed to do all my Christmas shopping neither in Washington,nor Sullivan and without darkening the door at Wal-Mart.

In this case, a rising tide does not lift all ships.

Nicklaus is a long-time Wal-Mart defender/apologist. I am sure this isn’t the last pro-WallyWorld word we hear from him.

Though, I would like to see the report take into account the affect on local and state government by Wal-Mart. I found the following story of most interest (and typical of Wal-Mart).

http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/861773.html

Wal-Mart and its anti-worker mindset is leading our beloved country’s race to the bottom. It is amazing to me that David rarely, if ever, cites studies which contradict his rightwing, Friedman-style economic bent. For example, a recent study by a California university showed that a simple increase across-the-board of one penny in every product sold by Wal-Mart would be enough to give its downtrodden workers and their families adequate health care coverage. Raising the pay of its workers to $10.00 an hour, hardly an outrageous sum, would cost the average Wal-Mart shopper (if ALL of the cost of this increase were passed through to the consumer)an extra nine dollars per year. I bet if the general public were aware of these facts, they would be getting on Wal-Mart pretty hard about their stingy attitude toward their workers. Of course, this also explains why Wal-Mart works so hard against allowing their workers free-choice regarding unionization. It is well-known that after the Meat-Cutters Union won an election in just one store in Texas in 1998, Wal-Mart closed all of its fresh-meat operations in that area in order to prevent the union from negotiating with a properly-certified labor organization. Unions built our middle class and the super-rich are working hard to shrink it. Wake up, David and Wake up, America!

Congrats, Teresa. I’m glad your family liked those Dollar General chocolate covered cherries.

Can either of you three tell me how reporting the results of a study qualifies one as an apologist?

Suzy, if you could legally, according to current law, reduce your taxes, would you do it? If not, why?

Amazed: Failing consistently to report results from diverse studies on this economic matter makes one, ipso facto, an apologist for the one side that is consistenly represented. By the way, does any other far right wing, plutocratic think tank(the Show-Me Institute)get any more ink in the P-D’s Business Section than Republican financier Sinquefield’s Show-Me Institute? Rightwingers only cry about “fair and balanced” in the other sections of the paper–they obviously “own” the Business Section! Wake up, America!

Did the Show-Me Institue or Sinqa somebody even appear in the article?

I only saw Terry J. Fitzgerald, economist with the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank.

Resume reading things that didn’t actually appear now, Whiterosesociety.

Amazed: nothing exists in a vacuum. I believe it is permissible to bring up other items, especially ones related to the blog in question, during one’s comments. My point was that David skews the discussion by highlighting studies which back up his conservative economic viewpoint. The Show-Me Institute is frequently spotlighted in David’s work, while other viewpoints are neglected. Rex Singuefield is a super-rich Republican funder who also funds the far right wing think tank called the Show-Me Institute. I like Naomi Klein’s definition(paraphrased here) of a think tank: composed of hacks paid to think by the makers of tanks! Change is coming, folks and it is about time! Wake up, America!

I’ll quote the conclusion of David’s post:

“It’s true that Wal-Mart generally chooses to locate in counties with larger populations and healthier economies, so this research doesn’t amount to an endorsement of the giant retailer as a job creator. Fitzgerald and co-author Ronald A. Wirtz conclude:

In sum, fedgazette findings suggest that Wal-Mart has a slightly positive effect on counties where the retailer decides to set up shop. But the effects are small; one could call the results mostly a wash.”

Heaven forbid that anyone on either extreme should be able to accept the rational concept that Wal-Mart, or practically any other aspect of the economy now or historically, has characteristics that benefit some people and harm others. Recognizing that, on balance, the benefits of free market competition generally exceed the disadvantages, I first pay attention to the specific issue (such as the real economic impacts of Wal-Mart, positive and negative) and then look for ways to compensate people who “lose” without totally wiping out the benefits to people who “win.” And the most impartial way of doing that is for the people who “win” — and therefore realize higher incomes — to pay a higher portion of their incomes to taxes than those who “lose.”