• 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

like i posted before there is a 50% youth unemployment rate in DC. why don't we ask them if they want a job at 8.50 an hour they dont need a condescending ideologue Prog from Oklahoma like you to make decisions for them. they have their own voice they don't need you to hold their hand and decide what you think is best for them

At 8.50 an hour the slack will have to be taken up by the public if one desires semi healthy feed workforce
 
So I've been mislead all this time? Walmart is trumpeted by everyone as cheaper than anything else.

Yes you have been mislead.

Walmart does not have the lowest prices.
 
No. If you've read any of my posts on the subject, I want Business to start developing a little enlightened self-interest. Profit is good, but it is not everything if you destroy the base from whence your profit comes. If you want to sell stuff, make sure the buyers have money to spend on it.



It doesn't work that way, to increase the amount of money first and then wait for demand to follow.

It's not " enlightenment" to argue for mandated wage increases by whatever method and pretend that it's being done in a vacuum.
 
It doesn't work that way, to increase the amount of money first and then wait for demand to follow.

It's not " enlightenment" to argue for mandated wage increases by whatever method and pretend that it's being done in a vacuum.

It worked that way for Henry Ford. He paid enough so his employees could afford to buy and it worked.
 
Yes you have been mislead.

Walmart does not have the lowest prices.

You CAN take in a advertisement from a competitor with a lower price, and WallMart will match it, as will any number of big box stores.
 
You CAN take in a advertisement from a competitor with a lower price, and WallMart will match it, as will any number of big box stores.

So like I said they don't have lower prices.
 
At 8.50 an hour the slack will have to be taken up by the public if one desires semi healthy feed workforce

and how much "slack" will need to be taken up for someone who makes 0 per hour?
 
like i posted before there is a 50% youth unemployment rate in DC. why don't we ask them if they want a job at 8.50 an hour they dont need a condescending ideologue Prog from Oklahoma like you to make decisions for them. they have their own voice they don't need you to hold their hand and decide what you think is best for them

So again no answer just more vague questions... :roll:

They also don't need condescending 'conservatives' who think peeing off the balcony is trickle down at it's finest! :doh

Now about your typical partisan shift in the discussion- I never said I'd make their decisions- typical evade the discussion and muddy the waters with BS 'conservative' loony tune talking points....

I did point out there is a grave doubt to any claim of Walmart providing a NET GAIN in jobs and those jobs Walmart would provide will be temp work with no benefits with the taxpayer picking up the slack when the 3 hamburgers run out of little Timmy has the flu. Walmart will be displacing the places where the people shop, causing small businesses to lose customers and have to shed jobs, and if the Oklahoma pattern is the example- those small businesses will close causing further neighborhood blight- not progress.

Something that seems to evade some 'conservative' 'job creator' worshipers- if the new place of employment causes other businesses to close that isn't a win. If the new place of employment churns temp workers through, evading unemployment, and paying wages so low the worker qualifies for government assistance it isn't a win.
 
and how much "slack" will need to be taken up for someone who makes 0 per hour?

Probably about the same. I wonder why though why a business can piggy back these costs on to the public dime. Seems to me it is a failure of the private sector.
 
One person's ****, is another persons opportunity. It's all a matter of perspective and attitude..

**** wages and part time work are still **** wages and part time work no matter how you look at it. It is not a matter a of perspective and attitude.

Perhaps it would be best for those who hate to get back to standing by the mailbox, and let those who understand the concept of stepping stone and contribution greater opportunity to get on with their life objectives

If you are working for walmart then you are still standing by the mailbox.
 
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.

And put a lot of smaller family owned shops out of business. I ain't losing any sleep over this one. I bet plenty of independent store owners that have been a part of the community for a long time are happy about it.
 
All the more reason to pass it.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of town.
 
i will use the favorite pro abortion argument "if you don't want abortion done have one"

If you don't like Walmart wages don't work there
If you don't like Walmart don't shop there
 
i will use the favorite pro abortion argument "if you don't want abortion done have one"

If you don't like Walmart wages don't work there
If you don't like Walmart don't shop there

And if Walmart pouts and decides to stay away, it's a goooood thing..... ;)

But that still doesn't change the fact that Walmart isn't a job creator, just a job exchanger and a small business killer. A poor neighbor in most neighborhoods, temp jobs for permanent ones and and end to most Main Street stores....
 
It worked that way for Henry Ford. He paid enough so his employees could afford to buy and it worked.

It worked because of the increased efficiencies of assembly line manufacturing, not because of what he paid the employees.
 
I must say, I love Wal*Mart. A great American success story. Worth billions. Selling at low prices so that people can afford products that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Supporing the military. Employing people that would otherwise not be able to find a job, thus lowering the cost to tax payers.

And my favorite thing is a Wal*Mart thread on a message board, the most entertaining thread there is. Brings out all the backward, hateful, low intelligence arguments by the left. Such great laughs, and proof of how wrong "they" are.
 
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.

On the contrary. The alternative to a lower minimum wage is not necessarily a higher minimum wage, but rather unemployment and no wage. If your labor does not return greater value added than the cost of hiring, training, and maintaining you as an employee, then you will remain unhired and effectively unhireable.
 
All the more reason to pass it.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of town.
I say call their bluff and do it! Wal-mart will make up for it when the company shows the employees how to get food stamps while they take the time off their taxes for showing gainfully employed people how that is done. :roll:
 
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.

this seemingly assumes that the measure actually addresses the underlying problems you cited above ...
 
and are you going to deny this also

I am going to tell you that the AEI is a right-wing think tank.

The link: http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG...84OQ--/SIG=12vaqjfrn/EXP=1373512546/**http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/11/-alexander-presentation_10063532278.pdf

The single mom, who lives in Pennsylvania, with two children (ages 1 and 4) that enrolls their children in Star-4 childcare center. What exactly is a Star-4 childcare center? The Office of Child Development and Early Learning give these facilities the highest rating attainable. As the chart (not clearly) depicts, child care benefits are between $12,000 and $14,000. Given that the average cost of childcare for a high end Star-4 center, given ages 1 and 4, can exceed $12,000 per year per child (if they even make it off the waiting list) while the mothers out-of-pocket expense is likely to be double that of the disbursed benefits. Conveniently, child care expenses make up roughly 40% of the total cost of welfare benefits received according to the AEI graphic.

And still, there is no way to validate the data other than to take Mr. Alexanders presentation to the AEI word for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom