More jobs or less?
Research shows that large supermarket retailers, like Woolworths, do not provide more jobs - there is a net loss of supermarket jobs in the community. For example the Price Waterhouse Coopers report (‘The economic contribution of small to medium-sized grocery retailers to the Australian economy, with a particular focus on Western Australia’ June 2007) found that small independent supermarkets provide over five times as many full time equivalent jobs per unit of turnover as do the large players. That is how the large players like Woolworths make so much money – by cutting their ‘costs’, including employment. Research by the supermarket giant Tesco in the United Kingdom, quoted in The Guardian, found that every large outlet causes the net loss of 276 jobs. See the article ‘My town is menaced by a superstore. So why are we not free to fight it off?’ at www.monbiot.com <http://www.monbiot.com>
Cheaper prices
The larger supermarkets tend to have fairly cheap prices but our surveys of local stores and markets show that the locals are often competitive. In addition we must also take account of other costs in any assessment of value: “the deepest problem that local food efforts face, however, is that we’ve gotten used to paying so little for food. It may be expensive in terms of how much oil it requires, and how much greenhouse gas it pours into the atmosphere, and how much tax subsidies it receives, and how much damage it does to local communities... and how many migrant workers it maims, and how much sewage it piles up, and how many miles of highway it requires—but boy, when you pull your cart up to the register it’s pretty cheap.” McKibbin B 2007 Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future pp 89-90. |