• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

Misterveritis said:
Where I work the decisions on merit began with a small group of three of us who were responsible for accomplishing the mission. From there our prioritized lists went higher, got tweaked and then came back to us.

The market is just a shorthand way of saying you get to decide for you and I get to decide for me.
Click to expand...

free of bias, free of discrimination, level playing field ... being white and male doesn't matter (just a coincidence that for most of our history most of the most powerful and lucrative jobs have been held by white men) ... purely merit, right? LOL ...
 
Misterveritis said:
It is very hard to tell. Congratulations. Or do you just give it a prettier label?
Click to expand...

I know it and do not spin it (pretty labels); nor do I confuse it with mixed economies, such as ours.

That help?
 
pbrauer said:
What great way to kept them out of your town, just increase the minimum wage.


View attachment 67150149

Walmart says it will cancel its plans to build three new stores in D.C. if local lawmakers approve a bill that would force the retailer to pay its employees at least $12.50 an hour.

Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Walmart U.S., writes in an op-ed published in the Washington Post Tuesday that the company feels the D.C. Council's proposed "living wage" legislation “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”


Walmart currently has three other new stores under construction in the area, and Barron says those stores will also be jeopardized if the bill passes.

Read more: Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes | Fox News
​


​


​
Click to expand...

If this bill passes, I hope WalMart immediately halts construction on the three stores already in the works. That's the message that needs to be sent. No discrimination. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found unconstitutional.
 
radcen said:
Not the same thing. They close old stores after they have made money, then build bigger stores as a further investment to make even more money.

Apples an oranges from building a store then never even opening the doors.
Click to expand...

As part of closing those older stores why don't they simply tear the place down and rehabilitate the property if they cannot sell it in a reasonable length of time - say a year after they abandon it?

It is simply a terrible eyesore for the community and hardly something a good and responsible corporate neighbor would do to any community.
 
haymarket said:
As part of closing those older stores why don't they simply tear the place down and rehabilitate the property if they cannot sell it in a reasonable length of time - say a year after they abandon it?

It is simply a terrible eyesore for the community and hardly something a good and responsible corporate neighbor would do to any community.
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different issue than the OP, but I'll address it and completely agree with you. I work in civil engineering. Walmart was actually my employer's biggest client for well over a decade. I have several site designs to my credit. That being said, it has always bothered me that they do this, and for the same reasons you state.

We know that Walmart will not do it themselves. There's no money to be gained today or in the future by doing that. The only way this could be accomplished is for the city/county to include in the initial Conditions of Approval (COA) that the building must be torn down at Walmart's expense if left unoccupied for x-amount of time after vacating.
 
MaggieD said:
If this bill passes, I hope WalMart immediately halts construction on the three stores already in the works. That's the message that needs to be sent. No discrimination. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The bill passed shortly after I posted the OP. IMO, Walmart will not stop construction, they will not be denied, they have the lawyers. Here is a current story:

Walmart battling D.C. city council over new store opening - CBS News
 
MaggieD said:
I don't find anything to indicate Mayor Gray has signed the legislation.
Click to expand...

When you find Walmart backing out of a market with the highest GDP per capita in the nation, higher than any of the 50 states, and providing their market rivals with safe haven amongst all the low hanging fruit, which it planned 3 store openings to get after, be reeeeeeeeeal sure to let me know.
 
Sisyphus said:
When you find Walmart backing out of a market with the highest GDP per capita in the nation, higher than any of the 50 states, and providing their market rivals with safe haven amongst all the low hanging fruit, which it planned 3 store openings to get after, be reeeeeeeeeal sure to let me know.
Click to expand...

It's been around since 1962, Sisyphus. They've been quite successful without Washington, DC, wouldn'tcha say?? Kinda' makes your post sound, I don't know, dumb?
 
MaggieD said:
It's been around since 1962, Sisyphus. They've been quite successful without Washington, DC, wouldn'tcha say?? Kinda' makes your post sound, I don't know, dumb?
Click to expand...

Yeah; we dumb asses always think that retail businesses like Walmart want to expand into new markets. Can you imagine???

And of course it begs the question: what dummies in the Walmart corp offices cooked up the idea of three stores in DC???? Do they no know Walmart is ALREADY SUCCESSFUL????

Silly girl. *sigh*
 
Sisyphus said:
Yeah; we dumb asses always think that retail businesses like Walmart want to expand into new markets. Can you imagine???

And of course it begs the question: what dummies in the Walmart corp offices cooked up the idea of three stores in DC???? Do they no know Walmart is ALREADY SUCCESSFUL????

Silly girl. *sigh*
Click to expand...

Explain what they did in Inglewood, CA?

Also, perhaps as a self proclaimed dumb ass, you could provide some insight into Inglewoods current 11.4% unemployment, and what they did to WalMart there.
 
ocean515 said:
Explain what they did in Inglewood, CA?

Also, perhaps as a self proclaimed dumb ass, you could provide some insight into Inglewoods current 11.4% unemployment, and what they did to WalMart there.
Click to expand...

It that a demand or a question in response?
 
This is so funny....

So Walmart offers to build stores hence adding 1000's of jobs and the greedy progressives tell Walmart to piss off because they don't pay enough... Then progressives have the ****ing audacity to pretend they don't have an entitlement complex???

If these greedy idiots didn't have an entitlement complex they would allow Walmart to proceed as planned.
 
If I was Walmart I would say 'forget this nonsense' then construct a 1,000 foot office building at that site that resembles a hand flipping the bird with the middle finger resembling a gigantic dildo.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...

Oh; then it's a non sequitur. Walmart was pushing an initiative to get a variance in zoning and environmental regs, which failed. That's not the same as being required to pay a wage that does not lower the prevailing wage in a part of the country where GDP per capita is uniquely high. Walmart is a bottom-feeder. So kudos to DC for saying it's okie doke to enter its market, but just not if you're going to bottom-feed.

Other areas of the country should take heed, and follow DC's lead, IMO.
 
ocean515 said:
Where did you go?

I thought the situation Walmart faced in Inglewood, CA was similar to D.C.. I was curious to read your take, in light of what you posted.
Click to expand...

Nowhere; still sitting at my computer here in Kirkland, WA.
 
Sisyphus said:
Oh; then it's a non sequitur. Walmart was pushing an initiative to get a variance in zoning and environmental regs, which failed. That's not the same as being required to pay a wage that does not lower the prevailing wage in a part of the country where GDP per capita is uniquely high. Walmart is a bottom-feeder. So kudos to DC for saying it's okie doke to enter its market, but just not if you're going to bottom-feed.

Other areas of the country should take heed, and follow DC's lead, IMO.
Click to expand...

Ah, well, I guess your quick google shot provided that bit of info. To be fair, it would be unrealistic to expect you would know something about Walmart in Inglewood, CA.

The bottom line for opponents of Walmart in Inglewood was the wage and the market "domination" issue. Among others who jumped on the "no to Walmart" bandwagon was Maxine Waters, and Jessie Jackson. In favor was the Mayor of Inglewood.

Today, unemployment is, as I wrote, 11.4%, and the city is reeling from Sacramento's confiscation of Redevelopment Funds, and public employee pensions and benefits.

Walmarts projected tax revenues would have been over $5 million per year to the city, which would more than cover the shortfalls.

Walmart waved goodbye to the delapidated commercial area it planned to upgrade, and built stores in other areas.

I'd suggest there are a few folks in Inglewood who would like to rethink the results from the manipulation of the race baiters who still ply their trade in the area.

Hindsight once again is 20/20.
 
ocean515 said:
Ah, well, I guess your quick google shot provided that bit of info. To be fair, it would be unrealistic to expect you would know something about Walmart in Inglewood, CA.

The bottom line for opponents of Walmart in Inglewood was the wage and the market "domination" issue. Among others who jumped on the "no to Walmart" bandwagon was Maxine Waters, and Jessie Jackson. In favor was the Mayor of Inglewood.

Today, unemployment is, as I wrote, 11.4%, and the city is reeling from Sacramento's confiscation of Redevelopment Funds, and public employee pensions and benefits.

Walmarts projected tax revenues would have been over $5 million per year to the city, which would more than cover the shortfalls.

Walmart waved goodbye to the delapidated commercial area it planned to upgrade, and built stores in other areas.

I'd suggest there are a few folks in Inglewood who would like to rethink the results from the manipulation of the race baiters who still ply their trade in the area.

Hindsight once again is 20/20.
Click to expand...

If googling (verb) was what you thought I did that made b-slapping you so easy to do, it begs the question: why did you not inform yourself first with a quick google-shot? Hmmm?
 
Ignoring *who* the retailer is for a moment... Simply from a fairness and ethical standpoint, why does a store building over 75K s.f. make a difference?

Oh, wait, you can't ignore who it is. That's the entire point of the legislation... thinly veiled to give the illusion of objectivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom