• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Wal Mart Destroys

Mike

Well-known member
Wal-Mart Destroys Social Capital, Study Finds
The presence of a Wal-Mart store reduces a community's level of social capital, according to a new study by economists Stephan J. Goetz and Anil Rupasingha.

Bowling Alone author Robert Putnam defines social capital this way: "Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." Social scientists generally measure a community's social capital by looking at such factors as how many civic and social organizations it has and the degree to which residents participate in public affairs.

Communities with higher levels of social capital are healthier and more resilient, and their members are better able to work together to solve problems. Economists have found that social capital also contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction.

"Our results indicate that the presence of Wal-Mart depresses social capital stocks in local communities," concluded Goetz and Rupasingha in their study, "Wal-Mart and Social Capital," which was published by the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. The implications include both a weakened social fabric and "real costs for communities in the form of reduced economic growth."

The study examined both communities in which new Wal-Mart stores were built in the 1990s and those that already had a Wal-Mart at the beginning of the decade. The study controlled for other variables known to affect social capital stocks in a community, such as educational attainment.

"Both the initial number of [Wal-Mart] stores and each store added per 10,000 persons during the decade reduced the overall social capital measure," Goetz and Rupasingha found.

They found that communities that gained a Wal-Mart during the decade had fewer non-profit groups and social capital-generating associations (such as churches, political organizations, and business groups) per capita than those that did not.

They also found that Wal-Mart's presence depresses civic participation. Communities that had or gained a Wal-Mart store in the 1990s had lower voter turnout in the 2000 presidential election.

Goetz and Rupasingha hypothesize that Wal-Mart's negative effect on social capital is partly a result of its impact on locally owned businesses. Wal-Mart harms not only local retailers, but also a wide variety of other businesses and professionals that serve local retailers, such as banks and accountants. When they disappear, the economists write, "the social capital they embody is destroyed, and their entrepreneurial skills and other forms of location-specific human capital are forever lost to the community."

Another factor they cite is the decline of the downtown and other neighborhood business districts that have long served as gathering places and helped to sustain the web of connections that knit communities together.

Goetz and Rupasingha urge local officials to take their findings into account when making land use and development decisions. The effect on social capital is "one more externality that needs to be considered" and weighed against the perceived benefits of a Wal-Mart store, they write.
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Very enlightening post, demonstrating 'Psycho-Babble' at it's finest!

MRJ

Grimms Fairy Tales can be Psycho-Babble to those less fortunate.

I suppose you have facts and figures, or a least a hint at logical reasoning to back up your assessment of the research?

Didn't think so. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Mike said:
MRJ said:
Very enlightening post, demonstrating 'Psycho-Babble' at it's finest!

MRJ

Grimms Fairy Tales can be Psycho-Babble to those less fortunate.

I suppose you have facts and figures, or a least a hint at logical reasoning to back up your assessment of the research?

Didn't think so. :roll:

MRJ's intellectual horizons begin and end with herself. It is too bad she is so vocal in sharing the limits of her horizons to help keep others from expanding theirs.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Mike said:
MRJ said:
Very enlightening post, demonstrating 'Psycho-Babble' at it's finest!

MRJ

Grimms Fairy Tales can be Psycho-Babble to those less fortunate.

I suppose you have facts and figures, or a least a hint at logical reasoning to back up your assessment of the research?

Didn't think so. :roll:

MRJ's intellectual horizons begin and end with herself. It is too bad she is so vocal in sharing the limits of her horizons to help keep others from expanding theirs.

Gin can make the horizon blurry. :wink:

I have tried and tried to get her to change to "Beefeaters". She still insists on the cheap stuff.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Boys, you must be the ones partaking of 'adult beverages'.......though I did eat out last night and enjoyed a bourbon and water.

When replying to a medical history asking how many alcoholic beverages are consumed per week, I have to answer that it is more accurately 'weeks per drink', than 'drinks per week'.

Poor Econ, you STILL have to attempt to cut down my intellect in order to make your own APPEAR as great as you dream it to be!

The very words "Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit", reek of 'psycho-babble', IMO.

"Networks" "norms", and "social trust" could mean many things, from a "network" of buddies going out for a beer every night, to the ladies hospital guild working together making cozies for the nursing home people. My dictionary defines network as "any interconnected system".

Another example of 'psycho-babble", IMO, is when people who train 'thought leaders' decide the words "matrix", or "matrices" is superior to the words "system", "order", "rules" or "structure". Definition: Matrix: That in which anything originates, develops, takes shape, or is contained.

The "facilitation and coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" seems to me to be more dependent upon population of a community.....that is, how many are available to do the work needed to accomplish necessary or desired 'public affairs'. In small towns, anyone who is willing is eagerly accepted into such organizations, and very few people who need help go wanting. In larger towns, people sometimes seem to compete for the available organization hierarchy, and more people are likely to fall between the cracks, so to speak.

The study did not mention anything about whether there are more people employed by the Walmart stores evaluated, than were employed by the pre-existing businesses in the communities.

Also interesting would be knowing if people in those communities were driving to other communites for work or shopping before the Walmart store came to town.

What would such 'statisticians' make of the fact that in some of the communities in my area, the smaller the town, the more churches per capita????

Mike, the authors don't offer "facts, figures, or logical reasoning". They "hypothesize", and then they use their hypothesis to suggest that officials use their findings against Walmart when making land use and development decisions.......probably the very reason for their study, IMO.

Hypothesis: 1. An unproved scientific conclusion drawn from known facts and used as a basis for further investigation or experimentation. 2. An assumption or set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis for reasoning or argument. The second definition best fits the story, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ

Finally,





This appears to my untrained, but not totally ignorant mine, to be yet another attack on Walmart. It
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
My wife worked at a SuperCenter for 2 years. I've seen firsthand how the new WM regime treats the "associates" (help), and is ONLY CONCERNED with the bottom line.

If Sam Walton knew what his heirs are condoning, he'd be spinning in his grave! We still shop there, some, but the folks we know who are still working there all have the beat down, 1,000 yard stare.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Boys, you must be the ones partaking of 'adult beverages'.......though I did eat out last night and enjoyed a bourbon and water.

When replying to a medical history asking how many alcoholic beverages are consumed per week, I have to answer that it is more accurately 'weeks per drink', than 'drinks per week'.

Poor Econ, you STILL have to attempt to cut down my intellect in order to make your own APPEAR as great as you dream it to be!

The very words "Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit", reek of 'psycho-babble', IMO.

"Networks" "norms", and "social trust" could mean many things, from a "network" of buddies going out for a beer every night, to the ladies hospital guild working together making cozies for the nursing home people. My dictionary defines network as "any interconnected system".

Another example of 'psycho-babble", IMO, is when people who train 'thought leaders' decide the words "matrix", or "matrices" is superior to the words "system", "order", "rules" or "structure". Definition: Matrix: That in which anything originates, develops, takes shape, or is contained.

The "facilitation and coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" seems to me to be more dependent upon population of a community.....that is, how many are available to do the work needed to accomplish necessary or desired 'public affairs'. In small towns, anyone who is willing is eagerly accepted into such organizations, and very few people who need help go wanting. In larger towns, people sometimes seem to compete for the available organization hierarchy, and more people are likely to fall between the cracks, so to speak.

The study did not mention anything about whether there are more people employed by the Walmart stores evaluated, than were employed by the pre-existing businesses in the communities.

Also interesting would be knowing if people in those communities were driving to other communites for work or shopping before the Walmart store came to town.

What would such 'statisticians' make of the fact that in some of the communities in my area, the smaller the town, the more churches per capita????

Mike, the authors don't offer "facts, figures, or logical reasoning". They "hypothesize", and then they use their hypothesis to suggest that officials use their findings against Walmart when making land use and development decisions.......probably the very reason for their study, IMO.

Hypothesis: 1. An unproved scientific conclusion drawn from known facts and used as a basis for further investigation or experimentation. 2. An assumption or set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis for reasoning or argument. The second definition best fits the story, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ

Finally,





This appears to my untrained, but not totally ignorant mine, to be yet another attack on Walmart. It

MRJ, with some of your skills, if you could only think too, you might be dangerous.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
MRJ, you perhaps needed to consult an ECONOMIC dictionary, not Websters.

Social capital, matrices, et al are all valid economic terms, not psycho-babble as you so eloquently put it. These terms and the study of such phenomenon came about because its not always possible to put a solid dollar value on certain economic conditions. While these conditions cannot be measured, they must have a value attached to them because they help an economic system survive.

Rod
 

Kato

Well-known member
It was reported on the news here last year that China's eight largest trading partner is not a country, it is Walmart. :shock:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
China relies on foreign trade to fuel much of its economy. When we have a trade balance with China, we are sending our money over to China. How much does the Chamber of Commerce say the money multiplier is when companies invest in a community? The same can be said when money from the U.S. goes to China. There has been quite some criticism of China depending on foreign trade to fuel its economy. When China has a trade imbalance, those dollars are going out of a country into China. It reduces the amount of money in the country with a trade imbalance. This is even worse when China does not have its currency traded freely.

The bad thing about this is that the government is getting the benefit of this trade with China because a lot of the money is coming back to the U.S. in the form of investments in t. bills. This creates liabilities for future generations for current expenditures. The interest rate is lowered, yes, but the businesses that are shipped overseas are real businesses from the states.

We have a lower rate of inflation, but it comes at the expense of U.S. businesses and debt our children have to pay.

In a beneficial trade deal, the money China makes would go largely to the population which would then have greater demand for goods. Some of this demand would come back in the form of demand of goods and services from the United States. This is not happening. We have a trade imbalance. Instead, money is being concentrated and China is purchasing the U.S. debt, which our children have to pay.

Walmart is a company that is taking advantage of this situation by arbitraging the differences between the U.S. and China. Walmart is basically selling out U.S. businesses for a buck. If China was reciprocating by buying U.S. goods and services we might have a good trade deal. As it is, it is beneficial for politicians who continue to spend U.S. taxpayer's money and having to borrow from our children to pay for it.

When high powered money goes to China and we have a trade imbalance, the benefit goes to the Chinese economy. It reduces inflation in the U.S. because those dollars are not being circulated in U.S. businesses. It is being used to depress interest rates and therefore increasing the value of hard assets like houses.

I don't see why we would want a country where the value of the country is tied up in high value houses while businesses who actually create wealth are sold out. It makes the numbers look good, but it sells out U.S. businesses and therefore U.S. labor value.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Boys, Again, there are many attorneys, activist groups and individuals who work diligently to tear down Walmart. They do not always stick to facts, though I wouldn't expect any of you to admit that.

I realize you all don't appreciate another lesson from the dictionary. You will have to show me where in the ranchersnet rule book it dictates what anyone can post if it isn't filthy lantuage.

Human nature seems to incline people to envy, or even to hate, those individuals, businesses, and other entities thought to 'have too much'. How does that attitude serve humanity?

Obviously there are people working for Walmart who do not hate them, who are treated fairly, who understand that they are compensated fairly.

There are other jobs in virtually every community begging for employees, judging by the numbers of ads, signs on business doors, and the nearly record low unemployment figures.

While the word 'matrices' and others may be valid economic terms, the use of 'matrix' in other fields as a classier substitute for other commonly used, more easily understood words, is regarded as 'psycho-babble', aka 'BS' by many people.

The Readers Digest Encyclopedic dictionary in my office lists various other definitions for 'matrix', when relating to biology, anatomy, printing, geology, mining, and math, none of which fit as well the context and apparent dual agendas of the writer.

You cannot deny the story is intended to turn consumers against Walmart, and also is intended to influence land use and development decisions by local governments.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
The Walmart in the Capital of SD, Pierre, population 14,000, is only 65 miles from me. Walmart doesn't appear to be hurting the good businesses. Maybe those that were getting 'tired' and not taking care of customers as well, but the good ones are still there, moving up in their expertise.

There are only two Walmarts in the entire West River area of SD. Rapid City, population about 60,000, has one, as well as a Sams Club. The other is in Spearfish, a college town of just under 9,000 in the Northern Black Hills with a long distance consumer draw from the north and west, especially. I'm not as familiar with Spearfish, but it appears to be growing and re-tooling main street. Rapid City definitely is growing and may get another Walmart, if the locals can quit squabbling over where it should, or should not be placed. The NIMBY symdrome is alive and well.

Sioux Falls, three hours away, population about 124,000, has a couple of the, I believe.

There are five other towns in SD with Walmart and/or Sams Club, Aberdeen, pop. 25,000; Brookings, pop. 18,600; Watertown, pop. 20,000; Yankton, pop. 14,000; and Mitchell, population 15,000. Those towns with Walmarts are the nine largest towns/cities in SD, btw.

I'm probably most familiar with Mitchell after Pierre and Rapid City (where I go most frequently, not often shopping at Walmart, though. I'ts too crowded, and understaffed at the checkouts.

Mitchell is interesting to us because it is having quite a growth spurt the past several years, led by their local businesses, which appears to have drawn more people to the community. There are a couple of small colleges there, too. The down-town area is re-inventing itself as a tourism/local small business/art and museum area, while Walmart and Menards have built new buildings out on I-90 near the new Cabella's and several nice motels and a mini-mall. Mitchell has long been known for it's fine restaurants, too.

Not sure what you were after here, RobertMac, but that is probably more than you wanted to know about Walmart in SD.

Some of those towns got K-Marts long ago, with the mantra of doom and gloom just like Walmart brings........and it didn't happen. Now K-Mart is suffering, but will probably re-invent or join someone else and give Walmart a run for their money, or some other outfit with new bells and whistles will, eventually.

MRj
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Boys, Again, there are many attorneys, activist groups and individuals who work diligently to tear down Walmart. They do not always stick to facts, though I wouldn't expect any of you to admit that.

I realize you all don't appreciate another lesson from the dictionary. You will have to show me where in the ranchersnet rule book it dictates what anyone can post if it isn't filthy lantuage.

Human nature seems to incline people to envy, or even to hate, those individuals, businesses, and other entities thought to 'have too much'. How does that attitude serve humanity?

Obviously there are people working for Walmart who do not hate them, who are treated fairly, who understand that they are compensated fairly.

There are other jobs in virtually every community begging for employees, judging by the numbers of ads, signs on business doors, and the nearly record low unemployment figures.

While the word 'matrices' and others may be valid economic terms, the use of 'matrix' in other fields as a classier substitute for other commonly used, more easily understood words, is regarded as 'psycho-babble', aka 'BS' by many people.

The Readers Digest Encyclopedic dictionary in my office lists various other definitions for 'matrix', when relating to biology, anatomy, printing, geology, mining, and math, none of which fit as well the context and apparent dual agendas of the writer.

You cannot deny the story is intended to turn consumers against Walmart, and also is intended to influence land use and development decisions by local governments.

MRJ

MRJ, you don't have a problem supporting packers who are hurting producers. It comes as no surprise that you would be in favor of a trade policy that is unbalanced and hurts domestic`producers and domestic laborers while helping politicians spend more money and enslaving the next generation.

I just don't know why you don't have a sorry feeling in your stomach when you say the pledge of allegiance to the flag while you are busy selling out the U.S. I guess you don't care about anything unless it knocks on your own door.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Interestingly I was at a conference last week and the Key note speaker was off to talk to the Walmart exec's to tell them they were not sustainable importing from China. Will have to see if her message gets through. She is a world leader in sustainable production and helping companies make more money by going GREEN. Time will tell.
 
Top