news-record.com

BLOGS

Off the Record

Economists like Wal-Mart

So says a survey conducted by Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forst University.

"As Wal-Mart continues to encounter opposition to new stores in New York and other major cities, a survey of American economists shows that three out of four are fans of the retail giant," a university news release reports. "According to the survey, 72 percent of economists agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, 'A Wal-Mart store typically generates more benefits to society than costs.' ”

Here's the full survey in Econ Journal Watch. It was actually conducted two years ago, but perceptions of Wal-Mart's benefits may have even strengthened since the economy tanked.

Just under 15 percent of 136 economists responding to the survey disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement about Wal-Mart's benefits.

The next question asked whether a casino generates more benefits to society than costs. 53 percent said no, with 30 percent neutral on that one.

There were other interesting results. More than 80 percent of economists said the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and trade barrier; more than 70 percent said employers should not be required to provide health benefits for all employees; more than 70 percent said the U.S. should allow payments to organ donors and their families; and 55 percent said government subsidies for ethanol should be eliminated.

These economists might find that the majority of our elected leaders in Washington disagree with them across the board.

Permalink

Posted by Doug Clark on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 4:49 pm

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Doug Johnson

October 14, 2009 - 6:52 am EDT

Amazing how Wally World became a good guy, when they threw in their lot with the Service Employees Union.
Same economist dammed Wally world until then.
Maybe it"s that Obama mmmmmmmmm?
How a casino affects one life, I do not know!
I can tell you from years of going to Cherokee, long before there was a casino, I have seen the growth at Cherokee. Weather the good out ways the bad, I have no clue.
I do know the out come of a lottery, in my short college career, I had to do a theme on the lottery.
The lottery SUCKS.
Its a suckers game, less than a 55% pay out in most cases.
The income in most cases is used to fund porklus projects.
The man who worked his butt off to get the lottery in Virginia, said it's the biggest mistake, I have ever made.
Full disclosure, yes I go to casinos*, yes, I on occasion buy a lottery ticket, yes I play golf for money, yes I play poker, yes I bet on football.
Make the odds right, and I even bet your paper, may say something good about a conservative.
Why do I do this?
I once word a letter to the editor, when NC was trying o get the lottery, I was bombed with telephone calls.
Most stating I would bet on anything. For the most part true!
* However I do not go to movies, races, pro sporting events. Unless I have free tickets.
I do see a lot of school sports, were I buy tickets. A lot of them!

Andrew Brod

October 14, 2009 - 11:52 am EDT

I wrote once about Wal-Mart in your fine paper:

https://web.uncg.edu/bae/documents/cber/article0CsrutyIZ4.pdf

Frankly, there's one thing in there I'd correct. I allude to the common accusation that the arrival of a Wal-Mart increases a county's social-service rolls because Wal-Mart offers such poor benefits that its employees are forced to seek out various public services. What I learned since writing this piece is that a new Wal-Mart often finds itself in the position of informing its new employees of public benefits that they didn't know they were eligible for. So while Wal-Mart opponents are right about the fact, they're wrong about the reason for it.

Andrew Brod

October 14, 2009 - 11:59 am EDT

Yes, a good deal of what economists say is unpopular. The vast majority of us believe that free trade is good for society. Most of us oppose subsidies that can't be justified by a broad public need or a market failure. And many of us are willing to use the price system in ways that make others queasy.

Well, we know how tough free trade is, no matter which party's in power. The ethanol subsidy won't die but is about the stupidest around. (The amount of corn needed to produce enough ethanol to fill a gas tank just once would feed a person for an entire year!) And more generally, lots of people like subsidies, especially those receiving them.

Connie Mack Jr

October 14, 2009 - 1:32 pm EDT

Economists like Wal-Mart* Doug's Headline

It should say! " China loves Wal-Mart"

Paul Daniels

October 17, 2009 - 11:22 am EDT

Doug:

Many, including economists, miss the point. Economic theory posits that people do what is in their best interest (which, I think is a pretty good theory). I think that any honest economist whould agree that people working at Wal-Mart believe that this is their best employment opportunity, all things considered.

Those who oppose Walmart often don't want Walmart there at all, simply because they don't believe that Walmart is "fair" to its workers. If Walmart doesn't do what critics believe Walmart should do visa vie workers, no workers will be hired. I think it is fair to say, however, that the opponents of Walmart are at odds with the employees who work their, as they are most definitely better off working at Wal-Mart, than they would be not working there.