Quote: (08-24-2016 07:00 AM)Repo Wrote:
I don't want this discussion to turn hostile, but literally the first sentence of your post says "correction", but you are not correcting or contradicting anything I said in my initial reply at all, which leads me to believe you are the one not reading my posts.
I was correcting your statement that if Walmart didn't exist there would be more overall jobs, by arguing that there would be more jobs in the retail sector only, which would be canceled out by job creation elsewhere resulting from the fact that consumers have more money to spend elsewhere due to Walmart's cheapness.
Quote:Quote:
Also you have created a strawman with your Broken Window Fallacy.
I probably wasn't clear enough on how that relates to my position. The Broken Window Fallacy debunks the myth that destruction is beneficial to the economy (because it ostensibly creates more jobs), whereas here I'm attempting to debunk your notion that the relative inefficiency of a bunch of small retailers vs. Walmart is beneficial to the economy for the same reason. So in order to see how Broken Window Fallacy relates to this, you'd need to replace all instances of "destruction" with "inefficiency."
Quote:Quote:
Also, your statement that money saved by shopping at walmart would be reinvested into the economy elsewhere is unsupported by the link you provided. (Can you prove they are not just spending more at Walmart? How do you account for food stamps which can only be spent for certain things?)
Even if 100% of the money people save buying cheap stuff at Walmart went toward buying more shit at Walmart, consumption is still increased and people are still buying a wider range of products which require workers to develop and manufacture.
Quote:Quote:
Futhermore you are still ignoring (and even denied in your initial post) the reduction of jobs that Walmart causes by putting other companies out of business.
Hopefully what I've written above clarifies this.