I missed this well-rounded net assessment of the economic impact of Wal-Mart, which is guided by an understanding of the importance of the small retailer in American economic life. He concludes thus:
Being a conservative is supposed to be about things like tradition, community, and, yes, aesthetics. If I'm right about that, it's hard to see why a conservative should regard Wal-Mart as a societal force for good even if Hugh's right about the job story.I'll note one thing; this is perhaps the most honest, respectful, and courteous WM-cautionary tale I have read since starting this blog. Even when dissing WM, one fails to find nastiness in Prof. Bainbridge's prose...So what do we do? Well, we must strike a balance between respect for private property rights (see my Kelo post) and our other values. How? On the one hand, government should not legislate against Wal-Mart and its ilk. On the other hand, government should not subsidize Wal-Mart either through zoning or tax breaks. Wal-Mart’s a big boy, so to speak, who can take care of itself. We ought to let it compete in a free market. And those of us with a bully pulpit out to use it to encourage Wal-Mart to become a better neighbor and citizen.
Posted by Kevin on March, 16 2005 at 01:24 PM
Brett Conrad wrote:I've found that when critics argue quality of life issues in regards to Wal-Mart, they focus on:
1. Would-be Wal-Mart employees
2. Small business owners
3. Affluent members of the communityThey usually ignore or minimize the most obvious beneficiaries: All the people who choose to shop at Wal-Mart.
Unfortunately, Professor Bainbridge seems to have done the same in his article. He calls Wal-Mart's influence on consumer prices a "small positive effect." I believe this is an understatement.
I live in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ. The Wal-Marts are crowded and certainly not as aesthetically appealing as Target, but they look better than our downtown. More importantly, shopping at Wal-Mart versus Safeway or Albertsons can easily represent a $30-40 savings on a week's groceries.
I often choose to shop at Safeway because the workers are friendlier and it is less crowded, but I can't imagine we should attempt to restrict the option of Wal-Mart from those who wish to benefit from it--especially in a metropolitan area with many low-income families, a significant number of whom are here illegally and (effective last November) ineligible for government public assistance.
Thankfully, Professor Bainbridge does not advocate legislation.
-- March 16, 2005 11:55 PM ∞
