Home > Eureka California, Wal-Mart > Opposition to Wal-Mart universally understood

Opposition to Wal-Mart universally understood

Satirical news site The Onion gets laughs with it’s Wal-Mart headline (below) because the mega-retailer is so roundly loathed in the United States.

Wal-Mart Executives Kind Of Weirded Out By Town Not Putting Up Any Resistance To Store Opening

That’s a knee-slapper because as you know, hundreds of cities have fought and won to stop Wal-Mart from locating in their area, as shown in the movie Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. Eureka is listed in the movie, but thirteen years later will get one anyway as the poverty-pushers sneak in the back door free of any pesky public input.

Of course, there is opposition but Eureka appears doomed to become the next slum on the Wal-Mart map.

The Eureka Wal-Mart is now hiring 200 “associates” according to a press release.  Lucky workers could be worth a fortune — but only after they and die and Wal-Mart cashes in its dead peasant life insurance policy on employees. Workers families get squat (unless they sue the behemoth in court) but Wal-Mart gets a return on its investment.

Just one more reason to abhor your sleazy corporate masters.

  1. walt
    April 21, 2012 at 5:40 am | #1

    Coming soon: A Red Nation.

  2. Ponder z
    April 21, 2012 at 7:56 am | #2

    in the last twenty years, Eureka has turned into a slum. Stinking of weed, full of tweekers, and rundown growhouses. Only outdone by Arcata. Its 8 am and all the stoners are still wasted form 420. When weed hits $300/lb you all will be thankful for a Walmart to spend your dope money in.

  3. Just Watchin
    April 21, 2012 at 8:13 am | #3

    “Eureka appears doomed to become the next slum on the Wal-Mart map”

    Here’s a news flash……Eureka was well on it’s way to slum status before Walmart ever came into the picture.

  4. Eleanor
    April 21, 2012 at 8:22 am | #4

    Yep, Walmarts are so crowded no one shops there anymore..

  5. SNaFU
    April 21, 2012 at 8:24 am | #5

    Just watchin’ 8:13 nailed it.

  6. Fuzzy
    April 21, 2012 at 8:40 am | #6

    People who think that Eureka is so awful have not seen much of the red-pinned towns and cities on that map. Thanks to our marijuana producers, we’re in much better shape than most places in the greatest-nation-on-earth.

  7. HUUFC
    April 21, 2012 at 9:28 am | #7

    Anyone notice the dirty people stumbling down the sidewalks on Broadway? The last two times I ate at Taco Bell a dirtbag tried to sell me something in the parking lot. The latest one was a “garden hose electric pump”.

    Walmart will employ more people than this blog.

  8. Carla Baku
    April 21, 2012 at 10:12 am | #8

    …and as we rage against each other, arguing the pros and cons, the 1%-ers who allowed WalMart into Eureka and the 1%-ers who line their pockets with the dollars made by selling cheap crap to those in need, those 1%-ers just sit back in ease and let us fight it out amongst ourselves. They don’t give shit one for the mother of four who is struggling to feed and clothe her kids OR the protester who can reasonably point to how WalMart has decimated other small towns. This is how it works, all over the country. As long as the 99% is over in the corner duking it out and insulting each other, looking at each other as the “real problem,” the 1% can relax. If we ever start A) having real conversations wherein we treat each other with respect, and B) find ways to work together to lift each other up into a strong, capable, working community, THEN the !%-ers will have something to worry about. When we find our common ground, genuine change will take place. Until then, we are just wasting time, fighting the wrong battle.

  9. High Finance
    April 21, 2012 at 11:21 am | #9

    Which 1%-ers that “allowed” WalMart into Eureka were that Carla Baku ?

    Such childish speak reflects badly on all the WalMart haters. The great majority of Eurekans look forward to (or at least don’t care) WalMart coming. That “mother of four” Carla pretends to represent wants Carla to shut up. That mother is looking forward to saving some dollars on her food & clothing bill.

    But, and here is the rub, even if most people agreed with ol’ Carla, WalMart is obeying the law. They bought a former store and are moving into a retail zoned shopping mall.

  10. Percy
    April 21, 2012 at 11:25 am | #10

    Hey Ponder bet you just love life in your homophobic, racist little victorian village.

  11. What Now
    April 21, 2012 at 11:44 am | #11

    Great article, Team Heraldo!
    Well done.
    For all the innocent charm the slum town of Eureka has, we’ll soon be able to add Mall Wort and it’s connection to asian sweatshops.
    Extremely fitting that it will be the anchor draw to a mall built on the site where striking workers were gunned down by a bought paid for precinct of police thugs

    Additionally, one can stand at the site of the concentration camp U.S. Grant was stationed at (Fort Humboldt) and survey this new new lump of gleaming cement and neon.
    That is, if it isn’t privatized out to the martini heritage Society riff-raff.

  12. jr
    April 21, 2012 at 11:46 am | #12

    High Finance is correct. Wal-Mart’s entry into Eureka is completely legal as they are simply taking over the facilities of a failed retailer. Those that disagree with how Wal-Mart operates can (1) not shop at Wal-Mart and (2) work to create an economy of living wage jobs so that those on the lower rungs have an option to Wal-Mart. Many people shop at Wal-Mart, Grocery Outlet and Dollar Tree because they have no other options due to limited income. Minimum wage is $8.00/hour. In 1968 it was $1.75/hour. What would this wage be today if adjusted for inflation? Credo reports that at $8.00/hour a person working 40/week for 52 weeks will earn $16,640. But Credo reports that a single person needs twice this amount just to get by. “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

  13. Carla Baku
    April 21, 2012 at 11:56 am | #13

    The 1%-er who ultimately gave the green light to this WalMart would be Carrington–not a bad person, on the contrary by all accounts a decent man. Being a 1%-er doesn’t make someone a bad person. But being a decent person doesn’t negate my point about what needs to happen among the 99%. If we want things to get better we have to find a way to work together to make it so. If that makes “ol Carla” childish, so be it.

    Yes, the mother of four (who posted above) IS looking forward to saving some dollars. And I don’t “pretend” to represent her…I AM her. I have four living children and when they were little I lived clinging by my fingernails to the bottom rung of the lower middle class. I bought all their clothes at thrift stores and almost NEVER bought clothes for myself. I absolutely get the need to save some dollars. I ALSO know that WalMart prices offer a temporary illusion of saving, while undermining the community in the long-run. Yes, when you are in financial straits that make it hard to buy a jar of peanut butter, the long-term effects seem like a moot point. But the facts about what this business does to small communities are out there. I’m not making this stuff up.

    High Finance, you can’t speak for “the great majority of Eurekans.” No one can do that.

    I didn’t ever suggest that WalMart is disobeying the law.

    And your response to my post completely confirms my point about nasty, bickery, bullshit consuming us and preventing us from creating postive change. You apparently enjoyed throwing my (actual) name around; what say you come out from behind your anonymous moniker and face me like a man? Let’s have a real conversation, two human beings with real lives and real concerns and real feelings. Double dog dare ya.

  14. wouldn’t it be nice
    April 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm | #14

    High Finance is not correct. It’s interesting that he(she,it?) responds to a reasonable, thoughtful post by calling it childish.
    Carla speaks the truth and he knows it to the bottom of his shriveled up heart. If that mother of four knew how the social structure has been made to favor the rich on the backs of everyone else she might not be grateful for walmart’s cheap stuff that’s only cheap until they drive their local competition out of business at which point they raise prices equal to or higher than the local stores they replaced.

  15. Anonymous
    April 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm | #15

    MEXICO CITY — In September 2005, a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico. In the e-mail and follow-up conversations, the former executive described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance. In its rush to build stores, he said, the company had paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner of the country.

    The former executive gave names, dates and bribe amounts. He knew so much, he explained, because for years he had been the lawyer in charge of obtaining construction permits for Wal-Mart de Mexico.”

    “Under fire from labor critics, worried about press leaks and facing a sagging stock price, Wal-Mart’s leaders recognized that the allegations could have devastating consequences, documents and interviews show. Wal-Mart de Mexico was the company’s brightest success story, pitched to investors as a model for future growth. (Today, one in five Wal-Mart stores is in Mexico.) Confronted with evidence of corruption in Mexico, top Wal-Mart executives focused more on damage control than on rooting out wrongdoing.

    In one meeting where the bribery case was discussed, H. Lee Scott Jr., then Wal-Mart’s chief executive, rebuked internal investigators for being overly aggressive. Days later, records show, Wal-Mart’s top lawyer arranged to ship the internal investigators’ files on the case to Mexico City. Primary responsibility for the investigation was then given to the general counsel of Wal-Mart de Mexico — a remarkable choice since the same general counsel was alleged to have authorized bribes.

    The general counsel promptly exonerated his fellow Wal-Mart de Mexico executives.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?_r=1&hp

  16. Hangem High
    April 21, 2012 at 4:48 pm | #16

    Once cheap oil (soon) becomes a thing of the past and it costs $10 million to fill a Chinese tanker, one-in-two Americans facing poverty (2010 Census) will be outraged that a $10 hairdrier suddenly costs $25 but is still designed to quickly fail…and few in the U.S. know how to manufacture any basic products!

    As shelves empty with useless, overpriced, identical bobbles, it will become obvious how similar the corrupt crony-capitalist state resembles the corrupt crony-communist one…even to the traitors on this rural blog trumpeting their nation’s long-term economic demise.

  17. Anonymous
  18. esta bribario
    April 21, 2012 at 9:29 pm | #18

    Pahleease. Ever been to Mexico?
    You have to bribe the church to use their bathroom.
    It’s fricking Mexico.

  19. Anonymous
    April 21, 2012 at 11:12 pm | #19

    It’s an imperial economy fool!!

    Bribery is what puts U.S. corporations in business all over the world, some more blatant than others.

    It’s another example of the free-market, free-trade, level playing field BS that NEVER existed.

    And when they get big enough and bad enough, every empire in history turns on its own people before its inevitable collapse.

  20. April 22, 2012 at 5:52 am | #20

    I say if they’re not willing to bribe the average American by putting money back into our infrastructure…then forget them, let’s hold out for a better offer!

  21. Dave Kirby
  22. Buzz
    April 22, 2012 at 9:58 am | #22

    HUUFC frequents Taco Bell and then complains about the class of people he meets there. And I’m sure that in return, the “dirty people” have their complaints about HUUFC.

  23. Hangem High
    April 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm | #23

    In one of his last videos titled “Fear and Favor in the Newsroom”, Studs Turkle documents the Chicago Tribune firing of veteran investigative reporters after they revealed that the Coca-Cola Corp. bribed Russian officials to build their manufacturing plants despite fresh water capacity and pollution issues in various cities.

    A Coke executive sat on the board of directors of the Chicago Tribune, causing thousands of citizens to protest with cardboard-coffins to bury free-speech in effigy.

    This is the common story of America’s corrupt imperialist tyranny, far from any imagination of an economic “level playing field” for its citizens, or a “representative democracy” without the free-flow of information.

  24. Pat
    April 22, 2012 at 7:35 pm | #24

    I am one of hundreds in Eureka who are glad Wal Mart is coming. If any town needs a store that is affordable, Eureka does! We have no chance of any low pricing in home building, gas, and very limited restaurants with the city control to not allow any future growth, which we should have to survive since we are on the thorough fare freeway 101 south to north.
    People need to be glad that the common family will have a place to shop without having to pay without plastic and can buy an item with cash and not be overwhelmed with high prices.

  25. A-nony-mouse
    April 22, 2012 at 9:13 pm | #25

    You guys are nuts if you really believe WalMart will make it all better. I was just in Coos Bay where there is a WalMart and 2 BiMarts. Nothing’s cheaper. If the local sells it for $1 then the ‘Marts’ sell it for 99 cents until the local goes under. Then it’s $125 or worse. It works that way. I watched it happen. Have fun with it Eureka. The only way from here is down. Yeah Costco gas is the cheapest around but notice that’s it’s just barely the cheapest. If they could really offer lower prices it would be a LOT cheaper like it is almost everywhere else. It’s another MegaCorp rip-off and we’re the ones being ripped..

  26. Matt
    April 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm | #26

    “If any town needs a store that is affordable, Eureka does!”

    …because KMart, Target, Costco, etc don’t provide that, apparently.

  27. Mayor Snorkum
    April 23, 2012 at 9:41 am | #27

    Responding to jr’s query:

    “Minimum wage is $8.00/hour. In 1968 it was $1.75/hour. What would this wage be today if adjusted for inflation?

    Using the CPI Inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) $1.75/hr in 1968 would correspond to $11.54/hr today.

    So clearly minimum wage has gone backward.

  28. retired guy
    April 23, 2012 at 11:22 am | #28

    I see that WalMart is in the process of hiring 200 workers. Some questions: 1) What do they pay? 2)How many full time jobs with benefits? 3) Do the direct applicants to the County Social Services Department to apply for food stamps, child care, rent subsidy and any other benefit available to underpaid and non-benefitted employees?

    HiFi– is this your idea of a good neighbor corporation? Have you read anything about how this outfit treats communities after they get their desired market share?

    Yeah, this is a really great thing to happen here. You might save 25 cents on a pair of shorts, but at what real price, all the while continuing the sweat shops in foreign countries.

    Is there a WalMart representative out there who can address these comments and questions? I seriously doubt it.

  29. Dave Kirby
    April 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm | #29

    I would like some real numbers on employee wages and benefits. What do the “local” businesses provide when compared with the mass merchandisers?

  30. April 23, 2012 at 7:14 pm | #30

    via Puget Sound Sage:

    “Our analysis finds evidence of significant direct and indirect impacts on the local economy associated with Walmart’s entry into the Skyway grocery market. The new Walmart grocery shifts consumption, diverting $25.38 million per year in sales from existing retailers in our base scenario. This translates into a drop in the total payroll value for all food sellers in the area of $655,000 per year or 1.2% percent of the total payroll value for grocery store employment within our study area.”
    “When the direct and indirect effects of this change are considered, the impact rises to $898,000 in lost output, roughly 6.4 fulltime jobs and $998,000 in lost labor income. Although the positive impacts associated with redevelopment of the physical site contribute a direct positive effect of $2.67 million in economic output and $1.12 million in labor income in the first year, this is not nearly enough to offset other changes over the twenty year life of the project. The total impact of all changes estimated in our Base scenario over a twenty year project lifespan is projected to be a net loss of $13.07 million in economic output and a similar loss of $14.51 million in labor income.”

    the complete pdf report is here:

    http://pugetsoundsage.org//downloads/Walmart-Fowler-Report-2012-04-06_1-1.pdf

  31. High Finance
    April 23, 2012 at 8:53 pm | #31

    Once again, those studies are irrelevant as far as Eureka is concerned.

  32. tra
    April 23, 2012 at 9:13 pm | #32

    Why?

  33. High Finance
    April 23, 2012 at 9:29 pm | #33

    Once again Tra, (sigh), Eureka has had a number of big boxes for years that took out all the high priced & inefficient locals.

    Those locals left know how to compete. Once again, the only ones that will be hurt a little bit are K-Mart, Target, Sears, Costco etc.

  34. April 23, 2012 at 10:14 pm | #34

    And those workers can suck it, apparently.

    There will be no new jobs, only relocated ones.

  35. retired guy
    April 24, 2012 at 9:47 am | #35

    HiFi—How do you know that the only retailers hurt by WalMart coming here are other big boxes and they will only be hurt “a little bit”. Have you done research or are you echoing WalMarts’ ads?

    I guess you’ll be shopping there? You seem to believe it is a good thing that they are opening soon. Are you in favor of the local WalMart? I just see dollars moving from existing retailers to WalMart. In an earlier post I posited some comments and questions which still stand, as no answers have been forthcoming.

  36. Plain Jane
    April 24, 2012 at 9:54 am | #36

    HiFi won’t notice until his tenants can’t pay their rent on their lower incomes.

  37. retired guy
    April 24, 2012 at 9:57 am | #37

    There is a story in todays Yahoo site in the”Science” section that explores the real cost of Walmart moving into an area. It isn’t exactly an eye opener, as it reinforces other facts already in print. it is just additional info to question the fact they are here. Sad at best.

  38. High Finance
    April 24, 2012 at 11:11 am | #38

    I use common sense and real world experience Retired Guy.

    Why don’t you ?

    Name a local store that would be significantly hurt. I have shopped at WalMart in the past and I am not impressed by their stores. But just because I won’t shop there it doesn’t give me the right to tell others they are not allowed to.

    It is still a free country.

  39. April 24, 2012 at 11:19 am | #39

    I don’t see anyone telling you not to shop there, but I’ve noticed several comments saying we shouldn’t talk about the many legitimate criticisms of Wal-Mart.

    There is still such a thing as free speech, for now.

  40. What Now
    April 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm | #40

    There’s some static on the surveillance recordings.
    Please lean closer towards the microphone and speak more clearly, citizen Heraldo.

  41. Thorstein Veblen
    April 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm | #41

    Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate. WalMart is just the poster child for structural problems in our economy.

    The religion of the free marketeers looks at the world through rose colored glasses, at least with respect to competition. In that free market competition is always a good thing. Why? Because it always results in optimal social outcomes.

    competition = optimal

    WalMart = competition

    Therefore, WalMart = optimal

    The main problem with all three equations is simply that they’re wrong. Myself, I’d gladly take a little less efficiency to get a little more freedom and equality of opportunity.

  42. retired guy
    April 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm | #42

    Common sense HiFi? You mean your common sense, not mine. There is a well documented history of what happens in small communities when WalMart shows up. Don’t be accusing individuals of not having common sense, when information says caution is required concerning WalMart moving into a community. Don’t you read, or are you a slow learner? Oh, I forgot, money is involved so you go with the corporate spin, not common sense. enjoy the great savings and see the result of this clusterf–k.

  43. Amy Breighton
    April 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm | #43

    Walmart is predatory and injurious to numerous rural economies researched by economists in many books and video documentaries thanks to the common lawsuits prevailing against Walmart.

    It is irrational to discard the plethora of evidence against inviting another bad-player into any community.

    Even the ONLY local research on Eureka’s economy concluded that Eureka was saturated in low-wages in 1999.

    Since when did “freedom” include the “right” to bankrupt municipal governments having to subsidize too many poverty-wage jobs with social services?

  44. What Now
    April 24, 2012 at 3:05 pm | #44

    “Common sense” burned people at the stake for contending that the earth is part of a heliocentric system.

    “Common sense” still convinces some people that the earth is flat.

    “Common sense” was used to income taxes TWICE during a period when out nation was committed on two raging war fronts and lead to an economic implosion.

    Good ol’ “common sense”….

  45. Jack Sherman
    April 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm | #45

    “Highly Mistaken” cannot provided citations to credible research to back any of his/her defiantly-defended opinions because it would take away the satisfaction of being repeatedly discredited.

    Pity masochist’s hunger for ridicule.

  46. High Finance
    April 24, 2012 at 8:17 pm | #46

    Name some local businesses that will be hurt Sherman or STFU as PJ would say.

    Retired Guy, turn up your hearing aid. The reason those studies are irrelevant in this case is because Eureka has had a number of big boxes hit in the last 20 years. This isn’t virgin territory for them.

  47. Jack Sherman
    April 24, 2012 at 9:03 pm | #47

    Every local working family, business and taxpayer is hurt by adding low-wage jobs to rural communities already saturated in them.

    Or, you can continue to ignore the plethora of economic research on the subject and stick with your feeble opinions.

  48. Anonymous
    April 24, 2012 at 9:11 pm | #48

    You’re wasting your time Jack, Heraldo’s resident buffoon is only here to provoke. Look at this recent idiotic lie of “High-Liar’s”:

    “You guys lost big in Eureka last November because a majority of the voters were tired of the liberals ruining Eureka.” (High Liar:
    April 23, 2012 at 8:56 pm).

    After he lies, he disappears.

    When did liberals ever have a controlling majority in Eureka politics? The Reich-Wingers ruined Eureka.

  49. retired guy
    April 25, 2012 at 10:57 am | #49

    HiFi–I can still use my eyes, and unlike you, I can read. Too bad you can’t. Anyway, enjoy the stuff you get at the new WalMart and take some remedial reading classes so you too can become educated about the lies WalMart spews. There are quite a number of sites listed above for your perusal , when you learn to read things other than WalMart ads.

  50. Jack Sherman
    April 26, 2012 at 1:50 pm | #50

    High Finance says:
    April 24, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Name some local businesses that will be hurt Sherman or STFU as PJ would say.

    Jack Sherman says:
    April 24, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Every local working family, business and taxpayer is hurt by adding low-wage jobs to rural communities already saturated in them.

    “Highly Mistaken” has nothing but satire, sophistry, insult, and feeble opinions to counter the research on this subject.

    His/her persistence is extraordinary.

    A community has every right to limit the number of poverty wage jobs to mitigate the economic damage it is proven to cause.

  51. High Finance
    April 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm | #51

    I swear Sherman, you are a relentless non thinker.

    Which is worse adding low-wage jobs or not adding any ? You speak as if adding the Wal Mart jobs will cost us other jobs.

    For God’s sake man, think for once.

    Unlike you 9.11pm, I have a life and a job.

  52. April 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm | #52

    You speak as if adding the Wal Mart jobs will cost us other jobs.

    That’s exactly right.

    I have a life and a job.

    Nice of your staff to work so hard so you can hang out on the Humboldt Herald all day.

  53. What Now
    April 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm | #53

    Once again, after infusing himself with “liguid courage”, Highly Fried staggers and lurches into the fray to declare that ANYONE who so much as disagrees with him on ANY matter whatsoever is most certainly a “non-contributing” member of society, an undesirable, or at the very least, as addlepated from substance abuse as he.
    Thanks for the entertainment, Fried!
    Keep those elbows swingin’!
    You’re the he resident W.C. Fields of The Humboldt Herald.
    (Minus the wit, talent and thought provoking qualities of the original.)

  54. Jack Sherman
    April 27, 2012 at 12:27 am | #54

    For the love of God, which is worse, a self-adulating clown with baseless opinions defended by predictable, childish puns and insults, or those who acknowledge the warnings of this nation’s economists, their books, documentaries, and the ONLY local research warning that Eureka was saturated in poverty wages in 1999?

  55. High Finance
    April 27, 2012 at 7:38 am | #55

    Adding Wal Mart jobs will cost us other jobs Heraldo ?

    I thought I was beyond being surprised by you but you have done it again. I shake my head at your total & complete lack of understanding the real world.

    Then I see that Dumb & Dumber struck again.

  56. Mitch
    April 27, 2012 at 7:51 am | #56

    OK, let’s see if we can follow the logic.

    The population of Humboldt has x dollars to spend at retail outlets.

    Currently, x dollars are spent at stores A-V. Wal-mart, store W, has not entered.

    Wal-mart enters. x dollars are now spent at stores A-W. If y of those dollars are spent at store W, only (x-y) dollars are spent at stores A-V.

    The result is that stores A-V, having less volume, will need to lay off employees or operate with lower profit. If employees are not laid off, and instead local owners take less profit, that lowers the income available to the owners, who would presumably have spent much of it in our area. But let’s assume the owners’ incomes remain the same, and the lower volumes lead to layoffs at stores A-V.

    How many employees will need to be laid off?

    This will be determined by the relative “productivity” of employees at store W versus the average relative “productivity” of employees at stores A-V. (“Productivity” is in scare quotes, because it is considered by economists to go up as wages go down — owners are getting more accomplished per dollar of labor cost. That alone should tell you who controls economics.)

    Since Wal-mart is proud of its high “productivity,” it will employ fewer people at store W than need to be laid off at stores A-V. This is not necessarily a bad thing: fewer people are now moving the same amount of goods, freeing people and resources to move to more vital tasks.

    Unfortunately, the freed resources don’t remain in our community, just the unemployed people. The money that would have been paid to those people now goes to Wal-mart headquarters somewhere in Arkansas, and is distributed to the Wal-mart stockholders. The unemployed people remain here, where they become a burden on the taxpayers until and unless they are able to find new employment.

  57. High Finance
    April 27, 2012 at 9:46 am | #57

    A few flaws in your logic Mitch.

    First, in the number of employees other stores will lay off. You still aren’t realizing the existing stores that will be hurt are not the “inefficient” local stores but the other big boxes. When Wal-Mart hires its 200-250 employees the other big boxes will not lay off a corresponding number. They will probably lay off some but not as many because they already run at the most minimal number they can get by with already.

    Next, you rely on a static sales volumn. There are sales dollars leaving this county for other regions that will now stay here. The fact this is happening is beyond dispute, the only question is how much.

    Then you are taking Humboldt County as a whole. Many of the posters here don’t live in Eureka but I do. While the impact on sales over all of Humboldt may be a small plus, it will be a large plus for Eureka because of the sales drawn away from Arcata, Fortuna & the county.

  58. Mitch
    April 27, 2012 at 9:53 am | #58

    “When Wal-Mart hires its 200-250 employees the other big boxes will not lay off a corresponding number.”

    That may or may not be true. If the other stores don’t lay off a corresponding number, there profits will drop. If their profits drop, one or more may choose to leave the area. If the other stores do lay off a corresponding number, there’s been no net increase in jobs.

    “…you rely on a static sales volume.”

    Yes. You’re right that some people leave the county to shop. I’d be curious to find out how much of an effect Wal-mart will have on that. I have my own opinion that it’s low, but that’s just an opinion. I’d have to save a lot to want to drive to Crescent City just to shop in a Wal-mart.

    “…a large plus for Eureka…”

    You mean Eureka will get more sales tax? Good luck. Once Wal-mart has established itself, it will play Eureka off the county or other cities, demanding to be given incentives, since it provides such an increase in sales tax revenues. They are expert at playing hungry communities off against one another.

  59. Thorstein Veblen
    April 27, 2012 at 10:05 am | #59

    Good points from both of you. I’ve been wondering myself how significant the ‘new buyer’ effect might be, i.e., how much spending will now occur in Eureka that went somewhere else previously.

    But all of this is just theory. Seems like WalMart actually has a real world record, we can see what WalMart does to isolated local economies, good or bad.

  60. John Valenti
    April 28, 2012 at 12:42 pm | #60

    Thanks Thorstein, but all the research, studies, documentaries, books, and on-the-ground reality surrounding WalMart is, remarkably, insufficient for ideologues confused about people’s “right to shop”.

    That right, like smoking and drinking, ends where my right to a sustainable economy begins.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers