Originally Posted by Fedaykin
Not compared to similar business models (i.e. Sams club). They do, however employ fewer people than even Sam's Club, and thats fine. Replacing **** jobs with slightly fewer decent jobs is a net gain for society and for families. Know how many households have two incomes where one of those incomes is used almost entirely to support the things necessary to keep the job (i.e. child care)?
It's not really the point to get into the argument whether Sam's Club could pay more. Maybe it could, but regardless, the impact wouldn't be all that significant. Because bulk shopping doesn't meet most people's everyday needs, which is why retailers like Walmart, Target, and increasingly, Amazon, do much larger amounts of business.
Megan McArdle (one of my fav editorialists) laid this all out awhile back (the Costco vs Walmart thing). It's an interesting read.
As for fewer 'good' jobs replacing ****ty ones, that's completely relative. As the article points out, Walmart employs 3 times as many people per dollar of revenue they take in. If they could somehow cut their workforce by 2/3rds to get down to Costco levels of efficiency, would you consider that a positive for the majority of Walmart employees who'd now be unemployed?