[Closi]

I think he is referring to some studies that suggested Walmart's presence lowered the living costs of low income families by $1k-$2k due to the availability of lower priced food and goods compared to the smaller shops available prior to Walmart's rise.

I don't think he is referring to the workers, and I agree calling it a welfare system is a bit silly and an overreach, but he is trying to say that it had an impact on household expenditure.

[sho]

> Walmart's presence lowered the living costs of low income families by $1k-$2k

These studies are useless in isolation. If the super-optimisation of production and supply chains (less factory workers, drivers, other lower skilled labour) and moving production to lower cost economies (far, far less factory jobs) also reduced the average income, then the benefits are far less clear, and may disappear altogether.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. If the people who are supposedly benefiting from these low prices are the same people who lost their jobs to the MNCs in the first place, I doubt they're feeling all that grateful.

[optimuspaul]

But the people negatively affected are few compared to those positively affected.

note: I don't actually buy into this idea that these so called positives are worth the cost. I believe we would be better off and happier if we still had the small businesses that were displaced.

[sho]

But are they? How many main street retail jobs has walmart killed? A million? Ten?

Look, you might be right. Maybe the pain is indeed worth the gain. My point is - it's not even being considered.