• 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

Minimum wage earners often shop at down scale department stores, Walmart being a good example.
A nonsequitur, again, if you have no job by being displaced from a walmart, what price they offer is pointless.
 
How is that unethical? Company officers would be derelict in their fiduciary duty if they did not take advantage of available benefits.

I consider it unethical to take advanatge of government subsidies that allow the business to underpay their employees. It is screwing the general public over for the benefit of the business owners.
 
Wal-Mart bears only miniscule responsibility for job losses, when set in the context of the entire economy,
You can change the goal posts as much as you like, the point you are conceding is that WM has a negative effect on retail employment.

This, in combination with the negative effect WM has on US manufacturing, again shows that these tiny, marginal "price savings" have a very great cost.

A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
 
The residents of a north central Austin TX. neighborhood decided they were too good to have a proposed WM store near them. They protested, marched, put up signs, held sit-ins, etc. for months.

Walmart had planned to build an up-scale two story store with an adjacent parking garage.

What they got was one of the smallest, non-assuming WM store in TX. 8)
 
I consider it unethical to take advanatge of government subsidies that allow the business to underpay their employees. It is screwing the general public over for the benefit of the business owners.

Then it's government's responsibility to change the rules.
 
You can change the goal posts as much as you like, the point you are conceding is that WM has a negative effect on retail employment.

This, in combination with the negative effect WM has on US manufacturing, again shows that these tiny, marginal "price savings" have a very great cost.

A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Regarding retail employment, there's nothing to concede; I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise. An effect on manufacturing, however, is fantasy. Wal-Mart is a symptom of manufacturing's departure, not a cause. Wal-Mart's price and choice benefits are significant and widely felt. Like all drivers of increased efficiency and productivity, Wal-Mart enriches the whole society.:peace
 
When you present statistical evidence that felonies are more common among Wal-Mart managers than among other retailers' officers then you can proceed with that argument.
Funny, I would think the standard would be WM own internal ethical standards. Not to mention that since what is not known cannot be compared to what is known, the idea that I could prove something without evidence is a pointless exercise.

But again, something tells me you don't know the issue I am referring to....it wasn't "managers" that were bribing.
 
Funny, I would think the standard would be WM own internal ethical standards. Not to mention that since what is not known cannot be compared to what is known, the idea that I could prove something without evidence is a pointless exercise.

But again, something tells me you don't know the issue I am referring to....it wasn't "managers" that were bribing.

I actually don't care to what you were referring. I'm confident there have been episodes of Wal-Mart misbehavior. I'm confident there have been episodes of misbehavior in all companies. Unless you can demonstrate that Wal-Mart is a statistical outlier, the appropriate response is to ask: "So what?":roll:
 
The area grocery store did that here in Ohio. They yanked their normal name stored and replaced it with the bargain version, drove the competition out, and the brought back their normal name.

I think everyone learned that trick from the Japanese import dump of the 50s.

Most people don't realize... or don't want to admit... that many large retailers do this as a matter of standard operating procedure. But when it's Walmart everybody gets all worked up about it because Walmart is the big bad boogeyman.
 
Regarding retail employment, there's nothing to concede; I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.
The claim from you has continually been that they benefit the poor, which included arguments on employment. As I showed, WM has a negative effect on ALL employment within the community.




An effect on manufacturing, however, is fantasy. Wal-Mart is a symptom of manufacturing's departure, not a cause. Wal-Mart's price and choice benefits are significant and widely felt. Like all drivers of increased efficiency and productivity, Wal-Mart enriches the whole society.:peace
You are just going in circles, I already documented the effect WM has on manufacturing, I documented the effect WM has on employment.

All you have you have is a cynical argument on price....but you ignore the cost.
 
Why should any community pay to subsidize Walmart's underpaid employees? Currently it is happening in many places with Walmart employees getting food stamps and other subsidies.

Would those food stamp costs decrease if Wal*Mart disappeared?
 
A big box has multiple advantages over small business, it is able to gain tax advantages, it has the ability to have large infrastructure supplied at cost to the community. If the object is to gain maximum employment with tiny, marginal increases in prices, having many small businesses is the better way for retail planning for a community.

Isn't the principal advantage of a big-box enterprise the economy of scale? Wal*Mart has over decades proven its ability to exploit that advantage to the max. Those other things are minor details.
 
Well, they will never make sense to a Randitarian....however for the rest of us with over 77 years of experience on the issue, it make perfect sense.

It does make perfect sense if shrinking the job pool doesn't bother you.
 
I actually don't care to what you were referring. I'm confident there have been episodes of Wal-Mart misbehavior. I'm confident there have been episodes of misbehavior in all companies. Unless you can demonstrate that Wal-Mart is a statistical outlier, the appropriate response is to ask: "So what?":roll:
The argument was how have they gained advantage, I answered with bribery, you respond that "everyone does it" and plce the burden of proof upon me to show evidence of other bribery....which is documented in the case of WM....but not of "others".

It is another example of your screwy logic......and of your apathy towards the real story.

But keep on with your shallow rhetoric, it is what you are good at.
 
I consider it unethical to take advanatge of government subsidies that allow the business to underpay their employees. It is screwing the general public over for the benefit of the business owners.

You think that companies should voluntarily turn down proffered government subsidies? Why aren't you campaigning to repeal the subsidies???
 
You can change the goal posts as much as you like, the point you are conceding is that WM has a negative effect on retail employment.

This, in combination with the negative effect WM has on US manufacturing, again shows that these tiny, marginal "price savings" have a very great cost.

A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

The price savings are massive.
 
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
Practical question: What will they do with the buildings should they decide to not open the stores?

They could simply leave them empty, but I don't see that happening.

They could be even more aggressive than usual in their predatory pricing to drive others out of business, then raise prices more than usual to cover the cost of the extra wages. They can afford to do that. Yeah, that'll help the community.
 
It does make perfect sense if shrinking the job pool doesn't bother you.
I already documented how WM shrinks the job market, it is not due to their efforts to increase min wage.
 
Does your argument then become nothing more than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
It's not my argument, merely what I assume their logic to be. You would have to ask them that question.
 
Isn't the principal advantage of a big-box enterprise the economy of scale? Wal*Mart has over decades proven its ability to exploit that advantage to the max. Those other things are minor details.
I know, overall employment....is a minor detail!

FFS.

Economies of scale are marginally better for prices on the retail level, they negatively effect employment.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom