• 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

A living wage? Anyone want to know how you maintain a living wage in a state? :lol:
 
tererun said:
Yeah, big threat by Wallyworld there. The walmart business plan is spam locations. Like they are going to let their customers go more than 5 miles without a walmart. Of course, i do think the law is very strange in a stupid way with how they regulate by size. If you call it a living wage you really need to realize that all people need to live, not just the ones in a superstore. If your goal is to hit the huge corporations who make a ton of money by underpaying their employees who make all the work happen then you totally miss the entire fast food industry. But it isn't like wallyworld is going to scoff at millions over half of millions which is still millions.
Click to expand...

There is a actually a reason they wouldn't hit the big stores the same as the mom and pop stores. Do you really have no idea on exactly why that might be? Perhaps because a living wage is a dumbest idea on the planet and it can only destroy small businesses? If you are trying to deal with that obvious shortcoming it might be a good idea to treat people unequally. Of course, a living wage has a tendency to cause inflation and if you up keep it that will be a regular occurrence. That always leads to the living wage no longer being enforced.
 
Last edited:
Bonzai said:
Why go to Walmart ? Dumpster diving is free and there's always the issue of better quality.................
Click to expand...

I know, and you don't have to get a job either. So that way your day is free to do other things, like drink, be useless, goof off, and watch your children starve. Yup, many benefits to freeing yourself from obligations such as working at Walmart. :roll:
 
Slyfox696 said:
My guess to the logic behind it would be stores of that size can afford to pay greater wages, especially since (again, speaking theoretically) stores of that size are more likely to be chain stores and not a small business.
Click to expand...

Wal-Mart certainly could afford to pay 12.50 an hour at a few stores, no doubt about it. But you can't as a law maker say we need to make sure workers have a living wage and then base what you determine that living wage to be based on where they are employed. Why does a Wal-Mart worker who stocks shelves need 12.50 an hour to live but his neighbor the city worker only needs 8.50?

Obviously its just an attempt to stick it to Wal-Mart, but its so transparent that they may as well drop the argument that its about a living wage because it just makes them look stupid for trying to pass off such an obviously stupid argument.
 
Wiseone said:
Wal-Mart certainly could afford to pay 12.50 an hour at a few stores, no doubt about it. But you can't as a law maker say we need to make sure workers have a living wage and then base what you determine that living wage to be based on where they are employed. Why does a Wal-Mart worker who stocks shelves need 12.50 an hour to live but his neighbor the city worker only needs 8.50?

Obviously its just an attempt to stick it to Wal-Mart, but its so transparent that they may as well drop the argument that its about a living wage because it just makes them look stupid for trying to pass off such an obviously stupid argument.
Click to expand...

Wal-Mart will not sensibly pay 12.50 an hour if it's no longer profitable. The argument, I guess, is that Wal-Mart is big enough to eat the costs because for some reason we've decided as a society that working at a place like Wal-Mart should be (mandated by law) a fruitful career path.
 
pbrauer said:
What great way to kept them out of your town, just increase the minimum wage.

​
Click to expand...


You could use this method to keep all kinds of jobs out of your town. Why stop at $12.50/hr? Why not make it $50.00/hr? We want the poor to be able to buy nice things right? Plus we'd keep all those evil job-offering companies out! It's a win-win.​
 
Slyfox696 said:
My guess to the Republican/conservative reaction to this news:

Despite the fact they constantly blast Obama for an economy with slumping take home pay and an increase of low wage jobs, Republicans/conservatives will now come out to gleefully point out how the liberal agenda is destroying the economy and taking away jobs.

That's merely a guess...let's see how it plays out.
Click to expand...
For people who can't figure this out for themselves, pointing it out won't help. One's efforts are better spent keeping them away from sharp objects and preventing them from eating paint.
 
Bonzai said:
Seems like a lot of drama created by people living big off cash they made hawking trinket trash made in China and assembled in Mexico.....................
Click to expand...

Seems more like the politcally connected "small" business owners have found a way to make themselves more competitive with the big boys - make only the big stores pay 51% higher wages for their use of very low skilled labor.
 
Slyfox696 said:
All of what you said might be true, but it in no way refutes what I said. I'll try again:

My guess to the logic behind it would be stores of that size can afford to pay greater wages, especially since (again, speaking theoretically) stores of that size are more likely to be chain stores and not a small business.


Notice I did not speak once about how hard it is for an employee, but rather the presumed ability of the business itself to absorb the costs higher wages. So you can say "Nonsense" if you'd like, but if you want to say nonsense to my speculation behind the logic of the bill, I'd appreciate if you'd reply in a way which actually explains why the logic is nonsense, not go off on an unrelated tangent. Thank you.
Click to expand...

The "logic" behind this bill is an attempt to keep the "small" business owners happy by making it harder for larger stores to undercut their prices. The ability to absorb higher labor costs (federal subsidies?) is why DC gov't employees make more (in salary and beneifts) than for the equivalent job in other states.

Washington D.C. pays the third highest starting teacher salary in the nation and also allows teachers to increase their salaries faster than any state in the nation.
Click to expand...

Starting Teacher Salary | Certification Map
 
I would think the affluent folks living in and around DC should subsidize the people who might work for Walmart - or any other minimum wage employer - to avoid the substandard wages, by their own definition, that they are currently allowing. Who are these people, and why do they require that Walmart do what they themselves have refused to do up to this point?
 
Its funny as well because Walmart employers in England (Asda) get full time work with paid holiday
 
So, they pass a law that states if you have 1 billion in sales and over 75,000 feet of space, you have to pay a $4 premium on the minimum wage.

Walmart pays more, but Target doesn't. Neither does Apples, or Starbucks, or Macy's, or nearly every other "large" corporation.
 
The first unintended consequence I see is new stores in DC never exceeding 74000 square feet and the larger ones walling off enough space to get down to that size. It is something like Obamacare turning full time employees into part time ones. Government meddling is usually a curse.
 
I say we see what size the capital is and start paying DC legislative interns that minimum wage instead of most of them working for free....
 
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...

Wal mart is a festering boil upon the body politic. The sooner it is lanced and removed, the better off America will be.
 
MaggieD said:
Unless they unionize, right?
Click to expand...

you read my mind Maggie. ;) You do know me pretty well. :2wave:

that would go a long way to healing the festering boil.
 
Samhain said:
So, they pass a law that states if you have 1 billion in sales and over 75,000 feet of space, you have to pay a $4 premium on the minimum wage.

Walmart pays more, but Target doesn't. Neither does Apples, or Starbucks, or Macy's, or nearly every other "large" corporation.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't like about it. It's turning the minimum wage into a progressive tax system. Not a good precedence to set at all.
 
haymarket said:
Wal mart is a festering boil upon the body politic. The sooner it is lanced and removed, the better off America will be.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about Target? Best Buy? Macy's? Starbucks? Apple Store? KMart? Sears? JC Pennys?
 
Samhain said:
How do you feel about Target? Best Buy? Macy's? Starbucks? Apple Store? KMart? Sears? JC Pennys?
Click to expand...

I have never been in a Starbucks. Don't shop at Sears or Pennys or Best Buy.

I like Macys because of that cute movie with Natalie Wood and Kris Kringle.

I do shop at Target but they hardly have done the nationwide damage to small town America that Wal Mart has wreaked.

My ire is saved for the largest giant in the kingdom. I only have so much of it to expend. ;)
 
Samhain said:
How do you feel about Target? Best Buy? Macy's? Starbucks? Apple Store? KMart? Sears? JC Pennys?
Click to expand...

The one issue I have with Walmart is what they did near one of the cities I live in. It was a smaller town, and they came in with FAR lower prices than even their other Walmart stores in surrounding cites, put the Mom and Pop smaller stores out of business, then raised their prices to be on par with their stores in surrounding cities.

Now, you can say that's business and you would be correct. However, IMO, that's pretty shady and one of the many reasons I don't shop at Walmart anymore.
 
TheNextEra said:
The one issue I have with Walmart is what they did near one of the cities I live in. It was a smaller town, and they came in with FAR lower prices than even their other Walmart stores in surrounding cites, put the Mom and Pop smaller stores out of business, then raised their prices to be on par with their stores in surrounding cities.

Now, you can say that's business and you would be correct. However, IMO, that's pretty shady and one of the many reasons I don't shop at Walmart anymore.
Click to expand...

It is shady that is why the laws that deal with them must be harsh. Target and best buy don't lock in employees and force off the clock work.

Macy's pays well.

Also only Walmart coaches employees to take welfare.
 
haymarket said:
I have never been in a Starbucks. Don't shop at Sears or Pennys or Best Buy.

I like Macys because of that cute movie with Natalie Wood and Kris Kringle.

I do shop at Target but they hardly have done the nationwide damage to small town America that Wal Mart has wreaked.


M ny ire is saved for the largest giant in the kingdom. I only have so much of it to expend. ;)
Click to expand...


Starbucks gives their employes with just 20 hrs/week health insurance.

As for Walmart:

California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You - Forbes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom