When the retail giant moves in, it promises cheaper goods, more jobs and more tax revenue. And in the short term, it delivers. But the initial boost hides later losses.

[Related content: savings, save money, jobs, spending, food prices]
By Karen Aho
MSN Money
Wal-Mart sure sounds like a good idea when it first rolls into town. That much is clear.

The thousands of U.S. cities that have said yes to the "always low prices" pioneer since 1962 did so for good reason. Many were so enthusiastic they even threw in cash incentives ($1.2 billion in taxpayer subsidies and counting).

And Wal-Mart came through. The disciplined Bentonville, Ark., discounter didn't become the world's largest (non-oil) company and history's most influential retailer, after all, by not following through on its promises:

Jobs: Check. More than 1.4 million Americans draw a Wal-Mart paycheck.

Low prices: Check. It's generally agreed that consumers in an economy without Wal-Mart in it would spend considerably more -- by some estimates as much as $2,500 per household more.

Tax boosts: Check. The cities where Wal-Mart builds do see an upswing in sales tax receipts.

Wal-Mart promised to add 22,000 jobs in the U.S. this year by opening or expanding some 150 new supercenters, those 187,000-square-foot giants that include grocers. In today's job-hungry economy, many well-meaning, practical citizens have rolled out the welcome mat, little expecting that the move could backfire on their communities.