You can make the Miramichi a commuter town with a good four-lane highway. And what's wrong with that? As long as they are making the money and going to spend it at Wal-Mart.
-- Francis McGuire, co-chairman of New Brunswick's Task Force on Self Sufficiency

The above quote comes from the Telegraph Journal, New Brunswick's provincial paper, which, like most big things in this region, is owned by Irving, the province's homegrown timber and petroleum giant. The quote is telling, if not terrifying. But it's not without its reasons, either.

Once a pillar of Canada's shipbuilding, fishing and manufacturing industries, New Brunswick is in a state of sustained economic decline. Young workers are abandoning their homes in search of greener (and richer) pastures, mostly in oil-rich Alberta, while small towns suffer a similar exodus as an entire generation flocks to the cities for what little jobs remain. Something must be done, on this everyone agrees.

Right now, the four premiers of the Eastern provinces are in Alberta, wining and dining executives and politicians, trying to get a slice of that oily pie. Their plan? To export manufacturing jobs from the oilfield into the labour markets of Atlantic Canada. They feel there's more than enough oil money to go around, and that the Maritime's heritage as a manufacturing centre makes the region well-suited to handle the work.

The local barons at Irving wants in on the pie, too -- or at least want a bigger piece of it. They're planning to build a second refinery near St. John. It will be slightly larger than their current refinery, which is already the largest refinery in Canada. In the newspaper they own, Irving was estimating that the new refinery would bring 5,000 jobs to the province. The problem is that most of the skilled labour is still out West, so bureaucrats and business owners are preparing to launch a "bring 'em home" campaign.

So what does this have to do with Wal-Mart?

Good question. The answer is multifaceted and somewhat unclear, but all of these economic issues point to a decline in municipal cohesion and a steep dependence on petroleum, the twin lifebloods of any Wal-Mart outlet. Without cars, citizens couldn't buy their goods at the local big box, and would be forced to return to the very same rural way of life that will be literally paved over if the Task Force on Self-Sufficiency has its way. (Perhaps it would be better named the Task Force on Car-Dependency).

This very same decline in the rural way of life is being caused by the very people who stand to benefit from it, namely Wal-Mart and their big box brethren. Here's how: Wal-Mart invariably builds on the outskirts of small towns, usually close to highways so as to attract the most traffic. A mixture of pro Wal-Mart hype and the fact that local retailers can rarely compete with Wal-Mart on a dollar-for-dollar basis means that less and less citizens will patronize local businesses. The town centre, once a thriving hub of social and commercial activity, becomes underused. City sidewalks, once alive with the hubbub of rural life, become unused, and townspeople begin to know less and less of their neighbours and local merchants. Social cohesion breaks down, and soon people can't even mount an effective resistance against the next big box that comes around. The once charming appeal of their town has slowly eroded away from under them and local jobs have all but dried up. So they move to the city.

And the Miramichi becomes a freeway.

Dark and frightening half-jokes aside, there is some merit to what McGuire and his team are saying. The rural way of life is indeed being threatened, but it seems somewhat simplistic to blame the decline solely on the economy. The concept of economy is itself a problematic concept, used to distract us from the various processes it describes and render its workings into the realm of mystery. Put plainly: there is no economy without the people and activities it serves to describe. We need to think about this in very close detail; we need to ask what people are up to inside the economy.

So what are people doing? Well, it depends. If you're the people of New Brunswick, you're looking for work or moving out West. If you're one of the Wal-Mart Overlords in Bentonville, Arkansas, you’re exploiting a weakened economy and offering sub-standard employment at a time when the province truly needs to strengthen its financial base, namely its workers. By doing so, you decrease the overall per-capita tax contribution (because Wal-Mart's average wages invariably remain in the lowest tax bracket, if not under the poverty-line). Lower taxes means less money for social and economic development programs, such as job training and placement programs. The downward spiral continues…

An un-lesson from Hollywood...

Actor-turned-President Ronald Reagan loved to tout the idea of trickle-down economics: what benefits the rich invariably benefits the masses. Prosperity literally overflows from the fat coffers of the wealthy elite and into the hands of the working poor. Judging by the state of America's great cities, it's pretty clear whether or not this policy did much good. So I’d like to suggest an alternative: trickle-up economics. The rich aren't, and never should be, the sole focus of economic policy. The rich have clearly done just fine, by virtue of their sparkling lawns and SUVs. It's the workers that need help, and so I would like to suggest that we begin with them.

It's not a new idea. In fact, it has its roots in the industrial revolution as an innovation crafted by a fellow named Henry Ford. Basically, employers pay their employees more, which in turn leads to greater spending, which means that more businesses prosper and can then pay their employees more. On and on and up we go.

Of course, it's clear that Wal-Mart is the antithesis of this plan, and a staunch supporter of a Reagan-styled economy. The Waltons, majority shareholders of the company their father started so many years ago, are the richest family in the world. Sure, they pitch in here and there, but it's never substantial. It would seem that they interpreted the "trickle" in trickle-down economics a bit too literally. The taps could stand to be opened a little more. (Ok, a lot more.)

Talking with Mike, a journeyman electrician in St. John, we learned that his union had boycotted Wal-Mart because the company refused to hire unionized workers to construct their latest store. Instead, they hired several underpaid apprentices and a handful of journeyman to survey the work and give it the official checkmark. As a skilled labourer, he understands that fair work deserves fair pay and that fair pay is the backbone of a healthy society.

It's pretty clear that Wal-Mart either does not understand this, or simply doesn't care. Erring on the side of optimism, I would hope for the former, but having been to the company's shareholder meeting in 2004, it's pretty clear that the well-being of places like rural New Brunswick is not on the agenda. Like most proponents of the Reaganomic model, Wal-Mart cares much more for their pocketbook than for the well-being of their customers, workers and, most of all, towns.