• 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

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

The law used to be 20 hours for healthcare and pension benefits. In other words, you could not have an employee working 1,000 hours a year in any way, shape or form and NOT allow them to participate in any company pension or healthcare benefits.

I don't know when it changed. But it should be changed back.
 
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.

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.
 
The net result. No one's wages go up since Wal-Mart bails but the smaller stores get to gouge consumers with higher prices since they have no competition - all while continuing to pay minimum wage. Good for the rich store owners. Bad for consumers (some of whom will be getting paid only $8.50 an hour). Another legislative triumph from our capitol city.
 
What great way to kept them out of your town, just increase the minimum wage.

Yeah! **** poor people, amIright?!?

Who needs jobs?!? not poor people! who needs a lower cost of living - not poor people!?! no sir.



when will we learn that increasing the cost of hiring Americans is just a way to shift wealth from poor Americans to poor illegal immigrants?
 
Walmart is an employer of last resort and deserves a pass on this. They hire people that aren't worth $12.50 an hour anywhere and they give them a way to contribute. I'm a strong believer in a minimum wage but to insist on a "living wage" is not a logical strategy.

Real question:

What is the alternative to a living wage?
 
Unethical business deserves what it gets.

Wal-Mart gets to give DC the finger as it walks away. They have 8500 stores worldwide. So they sell the land and build three somewhere else. That showed them!
 
Yeah! **** poor people, amIright?!?

Who needs jobs?!? not poor people! who needs a lower cost of living - not poor people!?! no sir.



when will we learn that increasing the cost of hiring Americans is just a way to shift wealth from poor Americans to poor illegal immigrants?

The poor people will be poor no matter what. If the bill passes and Walmart leaves, they will still most likely get min wage from local shops. If Walmart stays and the bill fails, the people will still be poor because they are making min wage. Either way, they people will most likely be making min wage.

I'm against the bill for the reason I cited, but let's not pretend this will hurt poor people if the bill passes. The people will still be poor. They should call this bill what it really is....the "Stick it to Walmart" bill.
 
How about this? Don't like Walmart, don't shop there. Apparently those who work at Walmart do so for various reasons. One is because some are retired and want part-time work. Another is because they can't find a job anywhere else, in many instances because they don't have the skills, training, or education necessary.

When will those pushing a "living minimum wage" understand implementation will restrict job growth and create more unemployment, not create jobs. (Like it or not)

In other words, it will do much more harm than good to those you want the government, i. e. taxpayers, to care for.
 
Wal-Mart gets to give DC the finger as it walks away. They have 8500 stores worldwide. So they sell the land and build three somewhere else. That showed them!

Walmart will be unethical profiteers as that is their business model. Not all communities want to have that model around.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062034530 said:
How about this? Don't like Walmart, don't shop there. Apparently those who work at Walmart do so for various reasons. One is because some are retired and want part-time work. Another is because they can't find a job anywhere else, in many instances because they don't have the skills, training, or education necessary.

When will those pushing a "living minimum wage" understand implementation will restrict job growth and create more unemployment, not create jobs. (Like it or not)

In other words, it will do much more harm than good to those you want the government, i. e. taxpayers, to care for.

The opposite will happen. people will make more spend more and thus create prosperity.
 
you read my mind Maggie. ;) You do
know me pretty well. :2wave:

that would go a long way to healing the festering boil.


A higher payed Unionized low skilled workforce would simply be offset with higher prices for WallMart Consumers, who would then find better deals with their competitors.

WallMart would respond by laying off thousands of workers, closing stores and eventually going away.

Typical short sighted liberalism.


That's retarded.
 
This is just stupid:



So people who work in big stores require 12.50 an hour to have a living wage, but people who work elsewhere only require 8.50? Despite living in the same town? With similar if not the same cost of living? How does that make sense?

I think the extra 4 bucks is to cover all the aggrivation that stems from dealing with the people of Walmart all day long.
 
Walmart will be unethical profiteers as that is their business model. Not all communities want to have that model around.

That's their prerogative. If DC thinks Wal-Mart isn't good for their community, then they can pass laws that would discourage Wal-Mart from building there. I just think it's laughable to pretend it's any punishment for Wal-Mart. It's more like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
 
That's their prerogative. If DC thinks Wal-Mart isn't good for their community, then they can pass laws that would discourage Wal-Mart from building there. I just think it's laughable to pretend it's any punishment for Wal-Mart. It's more like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

It isn't supposed to be punishment. DC simply said exploit somewhere else. That is good.
 
It isn't supposed to be punishment. DC simply said exploit somewhere else. That is good.

No, the politicians of DC said that. Simply put if the PEOPLE of DC don't want a Walmart, they won't shop there. So why the need to get politicians involved if the people can do the same thing with their wallet.

People like to complain about Walmart, but obviously there are PLENTY of people that would shop there because Walmart wouldn't be looking to put 6 stores in otherwise. While I don't like what Walmart does, it's the people's fault.

Government should not be involved in this.
 
It isn't supposed to be punishment.
DC simply said exploit somewhere else. That is good.

It's not exploitation if people still have the right to Chose
 
It isn't supposed to be punishment. DC simply said exploit somewhere else. That is good.

Better to be unemployed and self rightous, than employed and contributing.

Somehow, that just plays so well into the liberal/progressive pot of stew.
 
increasing the minimum wage is much less vital than ensuring that workers have ample opportunity for upward mobility.

that being said, i don't like walmart because of the effect it has on local commerce, and i feel that it has too much influence on its supply chain. i'm not advocating legislation to prevent further metastasis; i just choose not to shop there myself.
 
Better to be unemployed and self rightous, than employed and contributing.

Somehow, that just plays so well into the liberal/progressive pot of stew.

Better to save land for moral business than exploiters with no community values.
 
Better to be unemployed and self rightous, than employed and contributing.

Somehow, that just plays so well into the liberal/progressive pot of stew.

Walmart has a net negative effect on employment rather than net positive.


All the jobs that were once provided by small business are simply transfered to Walmart, except there are fewer of them. Where there were once paint stores and nurseries and hardware stores and pet supply stores, there is now just Walmart.

Sure, people who do not think at all try to champion Walmart as some sort of job creator, but that is only because they are incapable of even the most rudimentary logic. Retail is retail, and if people do not purchase something from one place, they will purchase it from another. In all cases work is requited to conduct these transactions, so the real determinant for employment is the efficiency with which these transactions are conducted. Walmart is more efficient than small, independant retailers, so fewer jobs are therefore created when Walmart moves into a new location.

We aren't even talking about a zero sum gain when talking about walmart. We are talking about a net loss.
 
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







While i think 12.50 is absurd - and the government needs to quit requiring ****. I also don't like this bullying tactic. I think their attempt to control the legislators is offensive. Walmart can go **** itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom