• 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

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.

They did that here in Michigan - simply left empty buildings when moving to bigger ones. The buildings were left to deteriorate, weeds infesting the parking lot, and it became eyesores in the community.

Sure, they have for sale signs up but in Michigan in this economy, such availability is more common that tatoos in a prison.
 
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.




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.

You have documented only claims about employment and manufacturing, neither of which relates to any point I made in any case. My point was and remains that Wal-Mart serves well those downscale consumers ignored by others. Self-styled "progressives" sacrifice the interests of those downscale consumers in order to thump their own chests about their superior social consciences. Hypocrisy in full flower.:lamo
 
You have documented only claims about employment and manufacturing, neither of which relates to any point I made in any case.
Bullchit, the manufacturing argument DIRECTLY countered your argument to the contrary, the employment points countered your "benefits to the poor" argument.

Your arguments did not hold up......so sorry.




My point was and remains that Wal-Mart serves well those downscale consumers ignored by others.
FFS, there has always been retail targeted to lower quintile earners, Woolworths, where Walton worked, was one....as was TG&Y, Woolco, FedMart, KMart, Target.....






Self-styled "progressives" sacrifice the interests of those downscale consumers in order to thump their own chests about their superior social consciences. Hypocrisy in full flower.
Um, the interests include employment both in retail and manufacturing.....and you lost those arguments.
 
A nonsequitur, again, if you have no job by being displaced from a walmart, what price they offer is pointless.

Having no job is different from having no money, as you should know. Low income would be those working on minimum wage or collecting assistance of some sort. Walmart, and these type of outlets, clearly have a place in the economy.

What is your realistic alternative?
 
And you know this how?:shock:
You still don't get it, that was never my argument to prove...it was yours......and now you don't care....yet you are still trying to argue the point on bribery.

Round and round...
 
Bullchit, the manufacturing argument DIRECTLY countered your argument to the contrary, the employment points countered your "benefits to the poor" argument.

Your arguments did not hold up......so sorry.




FFS, there has always been retail targeted to lower quintile earners, Woolworths, where Walton worked, was one....as was TG&Y, Woolco, FedMart, KMart, Target.....






Um, the interests include employment both in retail and manufacturing.....and you lost those arguments.

You will do well so long as you keep your own score. Your claims about our discussion are as baseless as your documentation of claims.
 
You still don't get it, that was never my argument to prove...it was yours......and now you don't care....yet you are still trying to argue the point on bribery.

Round and round...

Odd, I don't see Wal-Mart mentioned here.

These are the top five business bribes in U.S. history.

Kellogg Brown & Root
This company, now known as KBR, Inc., was spun off from a subsidiary of Halliburton. It is one of the largest engineering and construction firms in the world and has been connected to large U.S. military contracts. According to the New York Times, in 2009, the Department of Justice charged the company with offenses under the FCPA, including paying hundreds of millions of dollars to secure a natural gas plant construction contract to Nigerian officials. KBR pleaded guilty, as did its CEO Albert Jack Stanley, and paid $402 million in fines, as well as $177 million to the SEC. Stanley was sentenced to 2.5 in prison, beginning in 2012.

Siemens AG
Foreign companies that do business onshore in the U.S. also fall under the provisions of the FCPA. According to reports from the New York Times and the SEC, Siemens AG, a German engineering firm, ran afoul of the law in 2008 when it was charged for paying $16 million to the president of Argentina to secure a contract for making Argentinean identity cards. The contract was worth $1 billion to Siemens AG. In total, the company was accused of paying more than $100 million in total to government officials. Eight former employees and contractors continue to face charges in the scheme. Siemens settled with the Department of Justice and paid $1.6 billion in fines in the U.S. and Germany.


BAE Systems
The British aerospace company has been under investigation by British authorities since 1989, making it one of the longest fraud investigations in history. The main concern surrounded a deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia to supply fighter jets. The investigation spread to BAE's dealings in South Africa, Tanzania, Chile, Romania, the CzechRepublic and Qatar. The investigation focused on payments made by BAE through a "go-between" company to foreign officials. The British version of the Department of Justice dropped most of the investigations, citing national security concerns, but U.S. authorities picked up the ball in 2007. According to the Telegraph, BAE settled with U.S. courts and paid a $400 million fine.

Kerry Khan and Michael Alexander
Individuals can also find themselves charged for bribery and fraud. According toe Lubbock Online, in October 2011, two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees were arrested and charged with fraud for taking kickbacks, estimated at over $20 million. Kerry Khan and Michael Alexander are accused of taking bribes from contractors in exchange for being awarded lucrative government contracts, and of inflating invoices to the government and skimming the difference. Khan and Alexander remain in jail pending trial and face maximum sentences of 25 to 40 years.

Alcatel-Lucent SA
At the end of 2010, Bloomberg reported that Alcatel-Lucent, the largest landline phone network company in the world, settled its bribery case with the Department of Justice in 2010 by agreeing to pay $137 million, including $45 million to the SEC. The case revolves around a complex series of money transfers between shell companies and to consultants, resulting in payments being made to foreign officials. Alcatel-Lucent admitted to making improper payments in many African and South American companies.:cool:
 
You will do well so long as you keep your own score. Your claims about our discussion are as baseless as your documentation of claims.
Look who is running!

Mr. Idon'tcare.
 
Odd, I don't see Wal-Mart mentioned here.
Wait...your previous standard was retail.

Are these retail?

No.

But..you don't care....and yet you still are trying to make an argument.....and you can't even remember your OWN ARGUMENT!
 
Wait...your previous standard was retail.

Are these retail?

No.

But..you don't care....and yet you still are trying to make an argument.....and you can't even remember your OWN ARGUMENT!

You seemed to think Wal-Mart's bribery was important. I was just trying to look into your claim. Turns out to be more fantasy.:lamo
 
The descent into incoherence is complete.
To hell with your debate tactics, Jack, you previously accused me of "running" from not backing up documentation that documented itself.

You might try regaining your integrity before you start accusing me of incoherence. Your playing dumb to already provided documentation are examples of your incoherence.
 
You seemed to think Wal-Mart's bribery was important. I was just trying to look into your claim. Turns out to be more fantasy.:lamo
You already showed you believe it is unimportant, but here you are bringing it up again without the context, comparing it bribery for purchasing of products.

You were better off letting it go, ignoring it.....you just keep on showing your dishonest debate tactics.
 
He owes the union nothing. What if he got his job before the union negotiated a new contract, and the union members got the same package he did? By your thinking, then everyone else owes him dues.

By all means explain what this is suppose to mean. I'll gladly wait.
 
You already showed you believe it is unimportant, but here you are bringing it up again without the context, comparing it bribery for purchasing of products.

You were better off letting it go, ignoring it.....you just keep on showing your dishonest debate tactics.

Lefties cornered by their own hypocrisy are always amusing.:lamo
 
I already documented how WM shrinks the job market, it is not due to their efforts to increase min wage.

Yes, since retail employment would be higher with higher wages, decreasing SNAP dependency.

OK, I don't want to be disrespectful, but you haven't documented any such things, because you cannot. The assertions are untrue, they defy both elementary economic theory and evidence.
 
They did that here in Michigan - simply left empty buildings when moving to bigger ones. The buildings were left to deteriorate, weeds infesting the parking lot, and it became eyesores in the community.

Sure, they have for sale signs up but in Michigan in this economy, such availability is more common that tatoos in a prison.

Not the same thing. They close old stores after they have made money, then build bigger stores as a further investment to make even more money.

Apples an oranges from building a store then never even opening the doors.
 
Back
Top Bottom