By Christopher Robbins
September 21, 2011
If you think Wal-Mart would just plop down a store or two in East New York and call it a day, you don't know Wal-Mart. In order for the big box chain to gain 21% grocery market share, which is what they enjoy in the rest of the country, they would need to build 159 stores in New York City. That's 159 more places to get these fabulous hamster beds.
A report [pdf] conducted by the ALIGN and The Murphy Institute shows that the potential of so much delicious squeezable garlic in the city would be devestating: a net loss of 3,980 jobs, $353 in lost wages, 105 businesses lost in East New York alone, and 4,279 new happy Wal-Mart employees who'd have to rely on government-funded health care. But we'd GAIN this "old style salami" that tastes like elk!
Naturally, a Wal-Mart spokesman tells NY1 that this is all just a smear campaign: "The special interests today issued what amounts to a fairy tale press release that's billed as a study, I guess in hopes of scaring residents." Yeah, and we spent $215 million at Wal-Mart stores anyway, which means City Hall is losing out on $7.7 million in income. That's just a little bit more than the $4 million that taxpayers would have to pay to keep Wal-Mart employees fed and cared for!
Wal-Mart stores in New York wouldn't just be 100,000 square foot behemoths: "Express" stores would be 15,000 feet—or the size of a Duane Reade. "Markets" would be 35,000 square feet, and the 100K square-foot Supercenters would be out in the 'burbs.
NYC Public Advocate Bill de Blasio says, "What you would see with Walmart on a big scale is a net loss of jobs and a reduction in wages and benefit levels," but we're pretty sure that no matter how low wages get, this $5 set of THREE Ernest P. Worrell movies will always be affordable.
If there was any doubt that Wal-Mart treats their employees with decency and fairness, we obtained this top-secret video illustrating how happy folks are to be a part of the Rollback Team.
To view full article, visit Gothamist.