[rjbond3rd]

> many of which would otherwise be on welfare

I get what you're saying, but Walmart employment is (alas) very compatible with being a welfare recipient, and rather than preventing welfare, Walmart is actually subsidized by it (at least according to a recently popular theory).

[protomyth]

The local Walmart pays better than the local grocery store or any of the small businesses on main street. There is a reason that so many apply.

[code_duck]

Sure, now that Walmart has crushed those businesses, it can afford to pay a little more than they can.

[protomyth]

Those businesses are still around, it is pretty easy given what Walmart actually sells. Amazon is more a pain for a lot of those businesses.

[code_duck]

The ones that are still around, are still around. There's been plenty of documentation of walmart's negative effect on small cities' retail, manufacturing and tax bases.

[protomyth]

And that documentation would be (the manufacturing and tax base info would be interesting)? I see it quoted a lot, but I don't see much in the way of independent studies (and I am disinclined to believe union studies as much as I won't believe Walmart internal reports).

[code_duck]

Walmart's practice of locating stores just outside of municipalities to avoid local sales tax affects sales tax revenues.

[rsl7]

better.. if they let you work full time.

[protomyth]

Given the new healthcare law, no main street business is going to have full-time workers other than relatives. 29 is going to be it.

[jamesbritt]

Another view on "subsidizing Walmart":

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/10/if-the-we...