Tuesday, March 7, 2006

The Journal doesn't get it about Wal-Mart, again

RCJ, 3/6/06:
For more than a year, opponents have expressed concern about the store's potential impact on city infrastructure and existing small businesses, increased traffic and encroachment on views of the Black Hills.

Supporters have touted the job and shopping opportunities development would create.


The Journal continues to not get it that many people are just darn uneasy about Wal-Mart because of their immoral labor practices and the fact that the company has policies in place to do things like help their low-wage workers get government assistance for food and healthcare instead of paying a decent wage. Another Wal-Mart is an economic net loss to the community, even if you don't take their corporate criminal culture as a problem.

Oh, well.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous05:10

    Not all studies say Wal-Mart is a net loss. Please get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for reading my blog... You clearly have some information you'd like me to be aware of, so please feel free to share it.. I'm here to learn as much as speak.

    The studies about net economic impact do not form the most convincing one to me, anyway-- they only are a part of the information that forms my opinion on the issue. It's more to me about what kind of community I want to live in, and what kind of economy I choose to participate in. I suspect that we don't have the same opinions there.

    Please do not post anonymously; it makes for a better discussion.

    ReplyDelete