First off, great job. However, I think there is an interesting angle your story overlooks. In describing how Wal Mart creates a disproportionate burden on taxpayers by failing, vis-a-vis other similar businesses, to secure their stores, you seem to make the implicit argument that Wal Mart is being unjustly enriched at the expense of taxpayers. But given Wal Mart's "razor thin margins," which you acknowledge, isn't it equally true that the expense borne by taxpayers operates as a subsidy for low income shoppers? I.e., if Wal Mart had to internalize the expense of security, rather than externalize it onto taxpayers, wouldn't Wal Mart have to raise their prices, and wouldn't the net effect be to make things tougher on poor people?
Crib_D4 karma
First off, great job. However, I think there is an interesting angle your story overlooks. In describing how Wal Mart creates a disproportionate burden on taxpayers by failing, vis-a-vis other similar businesses, to secure their stores, you seem to make the implicit argument that Wal Mart is being unjustly enriched at the expense of taxpayers. But given Wal Mart's "razor thin margins," which you acknowledge, isn't it equally true that the expense borne by taxpayers operates as a subsidy for low income shoppers? I.e., if Wal Mart had to internalize the expense of security, rather than externalize it onto taxpayers, wouldn't Wal Mart have to raise their prices, and wouldn't the net effect be to make things tougher on poor people?
View HistoryShare Link