• 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

captainawesome said:
Well when the rolling blackouts occurred Enron's lawyers used Privacy
and other individual liberty arguments to delay and hide.
Click to expand...

Gotta love the selective outrage from the left at ENRON.

They shared auditors with Fannie Mae until Bush asigned them a new one, ( Price Waterhouse Cooper ) who found their CEO, Franklin Raines had misreported BILLIONS so he could meet executive bonus targets.

Fannie and Freddie did a exponential amount of damage as compared to ENRON, including poisoning the Markets with toxic Securities years before private MBSs encroached on their market share.

By 2008 they held over 68% of all Low Quality, Sub-Prime, Alt-A, NINA and just generally crap loans, or Toxic MBSs backed by crap loans.

By 2004 they held over 70% of all CountryWides crap loans while Angelo Mozilo was giving sweetheart mortgage deals to the likes of Chris Dodd.

Hell in 2004 when their Regulator was warning Congress of their impending doom Democrats were sitting in front of Committee's chaired by Republicans swearing up and down the two mortgage giants were NOT in trouble.

Over 5 TRILLION in toxic debt, and your using ENRON as the generic Corparate boogie man. Lol..

Fannie and Freddie, run by corrupt Democrats with a mandate installed by Clintons 1995 Home Owners Stategy redefined Cronyism, Corruption and set the bar so High no private Corporation could ever touch their level of waste and fraud.

When you guys go all anti-corporate on us are you trying to tell us Government is a better option ?
 
Fisher said:
My guess is that their DC stores would have a lot of shoplifters.
Click to expand...

My guess, is that even more stores will either relocate, or go out of business, because the higher wages will destroy their proft margin.
 
Kushinator said:
How is it anyone cannot afford an education this day in age?
Click to expand...

Because once you are a 16 year old drop-out you've pretty much lost the "free" option, and you are unlikely to have access to the information or capital necessary to propel you on to the next. Entry level jobs are a critical way to take people who have already set themselves up to fail at life and put them back on an upward path.... but we keep making those entry level jobs harder to get for those who need access to them most.
 
Moon said:
It's good to know DC has enough of a glut of available jobs that they can afford to lose the Walmart jobs, not to mention the jobs at other stores that always crop up around Walmart.
Click to expand...

Which is not unlike telling the fat girl at the end of the bar that she should let you have your way with her because no good loving is coming her way lately. :roll: Of course, down the road, the results could be catastrophic. :shock:.... for both of you.
 
Fenton said:
Gotta love the selective outrage from the left at ENRON.

They shared auditors with Fannie Mae until Bush asigned them a new one, ( Price Waterhouse Cooper ) who found their CEO, Franklin Raines had misreported BILLIONS so he could meet executive bonus targets.

Fannie and Freddie did a exponential amount of damage as compared to ENRON, including poisoning the Markets with toxic Securities years before private MBSs encroached on their market share.

By 2008 they held over 68% of all Low Quality, Sub-Prime, Alt-A, NINA and just generally crap loans, or Toxic MBSs backed by crap loans.

By 2004 they held over 70% of all CountryWides crap loans while Angelo Mozilo was giving sweetheart mortgage deals to the likes of Chris Dodd.

Hell in 2004 when their Regulator was warning Congress of their impending doom Democrats were sitting in front of Committee's chaired by Republicans swearing up and down the two mortgage giants were NOT in trouble.

Over 5 TRILLION in toxic debt, and your using ENRON as the generic Corparate boogie man. Lol..

Fannie and Freddie, run by corrupt Democrats with a mandate installed by Clintons 1995 Home Owners Stategy redefined Cronyism, Corruption and set the bar so High no private Corporation could ever touch their level of waste and fraud.

When you guys go all anti-corporate on us are you trying to tell us Government is a better option ?
Click to expand...


No what I am saying is corporations should not have rights.
 
captainawesome said:
No what I am saying is corporations should not have rights.
Click to expand...

Since a corporation is merely a group of individual investors, I would assume the you would agree unions should have no rights either...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Since a corporation is merely a group of individual investors, I would assume the you would agree unions should have no rights either...
Click to expand...

I would. So that is why I am pro Union. As it stands corporations have Rights. so should unions.
 
captainawesome said:
I would. So that is why I am pro Union. As it stands corporations have Rights. so should unions.
Click to expand...

Unions already have rights, yet you think another group of individuals shouldn't. That's a bit odd...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Unions already have rights, yet you think another group of individuals shouldn't. That's a bit odd...
Click to expand...

Unions have no Rights. I am pretty sure most states are right to work. What a misnomer for of a name.
 
captainawesome said:
I would. So that is why I am pro Union. As it stands corporations have Rights. so should unions.
Click to expand...

A corporation does not have the right to force you to pay X wages in your own business. And neither should unions. Neither have that right, yet that's what we see playing out.
So no, Business doesn't have that right, and by that reasoning you should oppose unions having that right, similarly.
 
They are now dead. Three cheers for Walmart. Now that the council took this action, lets see how many other retailers and large stores decide that maintaining anything inside the city limits is no longer viable. Good thing for many that it is a small area and Walmart and others can simply build outside the city and still get the cities customers.
 
Mach said:
A corporation does not have the right to force you to pay X wages in your own business. And neither should unions. Neither have that right, yet that's what we see playing out.
So no, Business doesn't have that right, and by that reasoning you should oppose unions having that right, similarly.
Click to expand...

Neither does a union. A union negotiates an employment contract for its members.
 
captainawesome said:
Unions have no Rights. I am pretty sure most states are right to work. What a misnomer for of a name.
Click to expand...

Actually fewer than 50% of the states are right to work, but even they do not ban unionization. They simply don't allow for unions to restrict who can be employed where a union exists. Also, have you never heard of collective bargaining rights that unions enjoy? Lastly, unions have been allowed to contribute to political activities where as this is a recent occurrence for corporations...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Actually fewer than 50% of the states are right to work, but even they do not ban unionization. They simply don't allow for unions to restrict who can be employed where a union exists. Also, have you never heard of collective bargaining rights that unions enjoy? Lastly, unions have been allowed to contribute to political activities where as this is a recent occurrence for corporations...
Click to expand...

More than half the states restrict unions. If the union negotiates a closed shop that should be their right. As it stands government says people can't collectively agree to closed shop. Also corporations giving money to polititions is far from new.
 
captainawesome said:
Neither does a union. A union negotiates an employment contract for its members.
Click to expand...

From the article:
The bill is backed by worker advocates and unions that say employees of big-box stores should earn a "living wage." It applies only to stores doing business in spaces of 75,000 feet or more.
It would require such stores to pay every employee no less than $12.50 an hour, up from D.C.'s current minimum wage of $8.25.
Click to expand...
Read more: Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes | Fox News

Are you claiming they cannot use government to force the business to pay a certain wage, or that they can. Which is it? It appears to be the can, and are certainly trying.

captainawesome said:
More than half the states restrict unions. If the union negotiates a closed shop that should be their right. As it stands government says people can't collectively agree to closed shop. Also corporations giving money to polititions is far from new.
Click to expand...
So using money to influence government is good, or bad, or neither? If it's bad, two wrongs don't make a right.
 
captainawesome said:
More than half the states restrict unions. If the union negotiates a closed shop that should be their right. As it stands government says people can't collectively agree to closed shop. Also corporations giving money to polititions is far from new.
Click to expand...

If a union wants a closed shop, they need to start a company, and then hire who they want...

There were unreasonable restrictions on business activities before Citizens United otherwise, there would never have been a case taken to the courts...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Actually fewer than 50% of the states are right to work, but even they do not ban unionization. They simply don't allow for unions to restrict who can be employed where a union exists. Also, have you never heard of collective bargaining rights that unions enjoy? Lastly, unions have been allowed to contribute to political activities where as this is a recent occurrence for corporations...
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, AP. :2wave:

Hence the never-ending screaming from the Left about the SCOTUS ruling, which only leveled the playing field, IMO! Sheesh! :2mad:
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, AP. :2wave:

Hence the never-ending screaming from the Left about the SCOTUS ruling, which only leveled the playing field, IMO! Sheesh! :2mad:
Click to expand...

Good afternoon pg. It is a bit ironic that those seeking fairness and justice for all also want to discriminate on what that definition of "all" is...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If a union wants a closed shop, they need to start a company, and then hire who they want...

There were unreasonable restrictions on business activities before Citizens United otherwise, there would never have been a case taken to the courts...
Click to expand...

:agree: The SCOTUS made it fair for both sides to play their games! :2bow:
 
pbrauer said:
California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You - Forbes

For years, Wal-Mart—and other large retail operators—have been piling up huge profits by controlling their labor costs through paying employees sub-poverty level wages. As a result, it has long been left to the taxpayer to provide healthcare and other subsidized benefits to the many Wal-Mart employees who are dependent on Medicaid, food stamp programs and subsidized housing in order to keep their families from going under.
Click to expand...

Why pay your workers part of the profit when taxpayers can pick up the cost:doh
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Why pay your workers part of the profit when taxpayers can pick up the cost:doh
Click to expand...

Just another side effect of welfare that no one ever wants to talk about.

When you subsidize people you will find you subsidize business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom