You have my permission to go screw yourself.
(Note that the “asshole” at the end is implied)
Who would that be?
Jason- routlaw pretty much said that explicitly, and Chet and Midnight Son certainly imply it.
Woah, huh? Where?
Chet
-oh god, why am i even bothering…
Wal-Mart serves as an impediment to rural growth. Rural growth in American is largely driven by tourism and retirement, low-cost manufacturing, and natural resource usage (farming, mining, and forestry). The establishment of Wal-Mart and other “big box” stores stifle the establishment of the small businesses in the area which would then reinvest in the community while they grow their businesses.
Looks like a long-term growth criticism to me, not “everyone should stay unemployed to keep evil wal-mart” out.
Routlaw’s contention is a bit silly if you think about it. If rural growth is stimulated principally by “tourism and retirement, low-cost manufacturing, and natural resource usage (farming, mining, and forestry)” – economic activities in which Wal-Mart does not participate – how exactly is Wal-Mart a major impediment to local growth? Seems to me that he’s admitted up-front that the small businesses that compete with Wal-Mart are not signficant players in local rural economies.
He said they weren’t a significant source of growth, but that doesn’t preclude them being an important component.
I imply this: Walmart comes into an area, undercuts everyone, businesses close, people lose their jobs. In desperation, they go to work at Walmart for $6.50 an hour, since it’s the only game in town, and a little money is better than none.
Insignificant, but important? Give me a break…
One wonders where Wal-Mart finds employees while the small businesses are in their death throes. Or do you believe they all close up shop on the first day the Wal-Mart opens for business?
You know, not everything has to provide wonderful happy economic growth in order to be an important part of the economy.
[size=2]Edit: punctuation[/size]
So Damien, you believe the local businesses are insignificant?
I’m just talking simple English. If something is “insignificant,” it cannot by definition be “important.” “Important” is virtually synonymous with “significant.”
No, and I never said anything like that. That comment would be overbroad.
What I did say was that based on routlaw’s list, the local businesses that Wal-Mart displaces are insignificant. My comment (1) assumes that what routlaw wrote is true, and (2) specifically disclaims comment on local businesses that are included in that list.
Let me spell it out for you nice and slow:
-
Routlaw says that the local growth is stimulated principally by “tourism and retirement, low-cost manufacturing, and natural resource usage (farming, mining, and forestry).”
-
Therefore, these local businesses – those related to “tourism and retirement, low-cost manufacturing, and natural resource usage (farming, mining, and forestry)” – are economically significant.
-
Businesses not included in that list are thus not key stimulants of local economic growth.
-
Wal-Mart is not engaged in activities related to “tourism and retirement, low-cost manufacturing, and natural resource usage (farming, mining, and forestry).”
-
Therefore, Wal-Mart is not competing with buisnesses who are key stimulants of local growth.
-
Therefore, Wal-Mart is not hurting key sources of stimulus for local growth when its smaller competitors go out of business.
Comprende?
So you disagree with the list, you think the non-routlaw listed businesses are significant, and yet you sit here and argue like the genie out of a bottle minor semantics over the claim, that you yourself have no belief in.
Yeah, don’t worry, I get it. Like i said… sponge boy.
Chet
- I am Walmart and I approved this message.
Uh, no. I expressed no opinion on the veracity of routlaw’s list. However, I took it as true for purposes of the discussion (I was pointing out a contradiction in routlaw’s post). I hate to use polysyllabic words with you, but there is a term for what I did – stipulate – and it a common debate technique.
My point was about the veracity of routlaw’s logic. In order to make my point, I had to presume the factual assertions he made as true.
This really isn’t terribly complicated. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult for you.
Midnight: I’m not sure why you would compare my post to a campaign ad. I was simply spelling out, in roughly syllogistic form, the contradiction in routlaw’s post – it was not some kind of knee-jerk, sound-bite type defense of Wal-Mart. If you’d care to take issue with my argument, I’d be happy to discuss the point with you.
But that’s not the argument being made here: people (routlaw in particular) are arguing that Wal-Mart will, in the long run, significantly impede local economic growth, not remove a significant source of growth. Growth sectors still need the rest of the economy are they to function, and the argument is that Wal-Mart is hurting the foundation (a healthy local economy etc.) that is necessary for growth.
Yeah Damien, you’re missing the point. What kind of economic development can there be when there’s a Walmart, McDonalds and Seven-Eleven on every corner? And the other original point: Giving $billions in incentives to Walmart is insane and morally repugnant.
But again, this doesn’t make any sense. Routlaw’s post indicates that retail consumer sales are neither the foundation of rural town economics nor a key area for rural economic growth. Well, if that’s true, how is Wal-Mart “impeding” anything? Wal-Mart won’t cause any small manufacturing concerns to shut down, or farms to go kaput, or mining and forestry to halt. Hell, it might actually help attract retirees.
If the bulk of small-town economic growth comes from routlaw’s listed areas, how is the provision of goods at Wal-Mart rather than small businesses a significant impediment to growth? It can’t be. Unless retail sales make up a significant chunk of the economic growth in rural areas (and routlaw indicates it isn’t), then Wal-Mart is simply not taking out the major engines of local growth, by definition.