Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Wal-Mart items

This was submitted via e-mail to the blog today. A Tribune column by Steve Chapman titled "Chicago's stupid war on Wal-Mart":
In most places, the arrival of a new Wal-Mart is occasion for happiness or even excitement. When one opened in Provo, Utah, last year, the local paper reported, "It was a time of celebration in Cedar Hills early Wednesday morning. The newest Wal-Mart Supercenter opened its doors there on the corner of 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive at 8 a.m., to a very eager crowd." But the Chicago City Council would sooner welcome a cholera epidemic.

Since 2004, the company has wanted to build a new store on the South Side, and since 2004, aldermen have been blocking the way, with the strong support of unions. Ald. Ed Burke was trying today to break the deadlock by offering a "living wage" ordinance requiring many larger companies to pay at least $11.03 an hour. But even that wasn't enough to satisfy opponents.

What on earth is going on here? Chicago is in conspicuous need of three things: more jobs, higher tax revenues and better shopping opportunities for minority communities. Wal-Mart would help satisfy all three. So what does it get for its trouble? A kick in the teeth.
The common refrain, jobs. In addition to more tax revenue and a first better shopping opportunities for minorities. I have often heard the food desert argument but never better shopping opportunities. Well perhaps our community could seek out more retail than what may exist here currently.

Also John Ruberry @ Marathon Pundit takes on a UIC professor who claims that Wal-Mart isn't a jobs engine as many are attempting to paint bringing Wal-Mar to Chatham:
Merriman said that 300 jobs were lost in surrounding zip codes after Chicago's Wal-Mart opened.

Gee, didn't a recession start about a year later?

As for the people who shop at that Wal-Mart, they are paying less for their goods than they did before. As I wrote last night, much of Chicago is a "food desert," an area where there are no supermarkets offering fresh and inexpensive food products.

David Merriman, another clueless expert.
Both sides are going to offer arguments. One side is going to talk down Wal-Mart and there are those who are against Wal-Mart anyway and will listen to anything negative about the company. Then another side may talk up the benefits such as jobs, greater business opportunites, or more tax revenue for government.

What matters here is that a business wants to set up shop. Why not just let Wal-Mart do so?

5 comments:

  1. When they said 300 jobs were lost when a Walmart opened up. Aren't some of them due to small businesses being put out of business by Walmart, more than a recession?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Which businesses are being put out?

    How many are dollar stores, convenience stores, fast food places, etc? (i.e. the kind where the owner probbaly doesn't live in the community nor hires locals)

    How many were local "legitimate" businesses?


    Also, how many people were shopping at Wal-Mart and/or avoiding those businesses anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  3. yes sir, come to think about it, no one raised thier finger in protest when best buy, jewel and food for less came in. No one demanded $11.03 an hour. so why Wal-Mart?
    WHY WAL_MART CREATS SO MUCH CONTROVERSY EVERY WHERE THEY GO?

    Arrogant and greedy

    well, the most successful corp in the history and most profitable selling counterfeit cloth and being sued by Nike, Adidas, Tommy hilfiger among few. the most profitable company in America had a slogan that says----BUY AMERICAN---yet 80% of their products are made in China.
    The battle is not who ownes what and where they come from in Chatham, its about the future of our kids.
    WAL-MART IS THE #1 RETAILER IN THE USA and 80% of thier products are made in China. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs.
    Wal-Mart is not good for America, forget about Chatham and Chicago.

    Please watch
    Http://WWW.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

    ReplyDelete
  4. While critics are questioning the timing the study has merit. This study was conducted over a three year period. Also, there is another similiar study (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Is-WalMart-Killing-Your-inc-1315229359.html)completed in a different city that comes up with the same conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. study released by University of Illinois at Chicago on January 8, 2010 found that Chicago Walmart Does Not Boost Employment or Retail Sales.
    http://tigger.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/newsbureau/cgi-bin/index.cgi?from=Releases&to=Release&id=2734&fromhome=1

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE READ FIRST!!!! Comment Moderating and Anonymous Comment Policy

While anonymous comments are not prohibited we do encourage you to help readers identify you so that other commenters may respond to you. Either read the moderating policy for how or leave an identifier (which could be a nickname for example) at the end of the comment.

Also note that this blog is NOT associated with any public or political officials including Alderman Roderick T. Sawyer!