OK, so there's ONE who doesn't like Wal-Mart.
The Conservative Case Against Wal-MartSo opening a Wal-Mart has a small positive effect on consumer prices and employment for the community. The latter effect dissipates over time as Wal-Mart drives competitors out of business or, at least, the area. In addition, many of these employees appear to be part-time, according to Basker's study, who likely get smaller benefits and opportunity for advancement than full-timers. (Timothy Noah also pointed out that Wal-Mart overstates the number of full-time employees by counting as full-time anybody who works more than 34 hours a week.)
But even if Hugh is right that "the average worker who is not an owner would be better off at the WalMart," what about those owners?
In his article, Thwarting the Killing of the Corporation: Limited Liability, Democracy, and Economics, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 148 (1992) (Westlaw sub. req'd), law professor Stephen Presser writes eloquently about the role small business plays in our democracy. Presser explains that corporations were endowed with limited liability precisely so as to encourage the growth of small business:
The popular democratic justification for limited liability is rarely observed by modern scholars. Nevertheless, it appears that to the nineteenth-century legislators in states such as New York, who mandated limited liability for corporations' shareholders, the imposition of limited liability was perceived as a means of encouraging the small-scale entrepreneur, and of keeping entry into business markets competitive and democratic. Without limitations on individual shareholder liability, it was believed, only the very wealthiest men, industrial titans such as New York's John Jacob Astor, could possess the privilege of investing in corporations. Without the contributions of investors of moderate means, it was felt, the kind of economic progress states like New York needed would not be achieved.
more@link