Skip to comments.Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’ (deceptive title)
Posted on 07/09/2013 4:45:41 PM PDT by markomalley
Wal-Mart said for the first time Tuesday, a day ahead of a decisive D.C. Council vote, that it will abandon plans for at least three planned stores if a proposal requiring it to pay a living wage becomes law.
Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Wal-Mart U.S., wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the proposed wage requirement 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A link to the legislation is here.
Good for Wal-Mart
How dare WalMart be capitalistic in the bastion of American communism?
When I did my thesis on Wal-Mart in 2005 the average shopper made $25,000. That was the lowest of all the retail stores. Target’s average shopper made $75,000. Wal-Mart is the reason that low income people live as well as they do.
This is what the liberals do everywhere, drive up costs and drive out jobs.
Gee, Yvette, you set up the equivalent of a bill of attainder aimed squarely at Walmart and YOU are upset at THEM?
and the left howls about the small businesses that are forced out by Wal-Mart, which is funny because they hate small business. And by keeping Wal-Mart out they keep the little people paying 15 bucks for mustard at a small local store.
And its so easy to refute. Yet RNC just sits there and watches the Koolaid Distribution Networks feed mind-numbing idiocy to the "uninformed voters".
I will say Reince Priebus shows signs of intelligent life as an organizer but we need active engagement of this propaganda whenever it rears its ugly head.
They should have been contesting this nutty stuff years ago and because they haven't taken away this weapon, the Socialists continue to punish us with it, endlessly, election after election.
A SINGLE Mom with SEVEN KIDS was protesting McDonalds in New York because she can't make ends meet on the Minimum Wage. Apparently she finds it logical that a job at a Burger Joint should pay the same as a Fork Lift Operator.
But the main point here is: The Consumer Pays All Costs of Business. You should have seen the responses from Socialist Democrats when I posted that simple truth on Twitter.
Can I ask a stupid question? Is this legal? I know that some states have ahigher minimum wage than the federal minimum. But, is it really legal to set a higher minimum wage based on the size of a business, and perceived ability to pay????
If any big box business stays in the District long enough to have standing, I'm sure some Constitutional Lawyer will take up the case.
I remember under the Anthony Williams administration how hard the District fought to get Big Box Retailers to even come into the District in the first place. And the fools are just throwing it away.
Especially when there is one in Bladensburg and one in Clinton that have nothing but DC license plates parked in their lots.
The Waltons are liberal democrats. Of course they’re also hypocrites.
The District has major problems, of course. You would think that they would avoid big dis-incentives such as this, which will hardly make any major retailers want to locate there.
The District has to overcome some big issues in order for major businesses to want to locate there in the first place. They have to realize that allegedly well intentioned liberal laws such as this will have unintended consequences.
I actually read your link....every disgusting word of it....
The living wage is 11.75 per hour ..?
The thing reads like something out of “Atlas Shrugged”
Wally World would be committing suicide in It’s DC stores if it abides by this....
They want checkers to have a wage that will afford a house or a Lexis.
Who is John Galt?
This I’m afraid is why people, especially people my age, millennials (even though Romney won white millennials like me 51-44%), and white working class types buy into the Dem-pushed idea that the GOP is nothing more than a Daddy Warbucks party. I mean, look:
Why should we care about the bottom line for Walmart?
Walmart does not care about conservative values. At all. Walmart pushes diversity, and Walmart will crumble quite soon on any issue pushed by the homosexual brigade. Walmart is fine with a welfare state. Come swipe your EBT at Walmart! Heck, they even socialize the cost of their minimum wage employs by helping them sign up for welfare.
Corporate America does not like conservatism, Corporate America likes conservatives who vote in the GOP-Elite bait-and-switch.
I’m not arguing for mandating a company to pay a certain wage just because it’s “bigger than others.” I’m talking in general. The minimum wage has declined in purchasing power steadily since the post-war years thanks to largely an increase in America’s population of low-skilled workers due to mass immigration from the Third World. This has made unskilled native-born Americans and ultimately the middle class lose their purchasing power. It was the (white) Middle Class that elected Reagan. And now thanks to the left and corporate lobbyists, we have h1bs and diversity flooding in and hollowing out the lower and middle classes and Corporate America loves it.
Conservatives should try to conserve the successful society that America was in the 1950s and the conditions that made us successful. Helping to conserve Corporate America’s bottom line is antithetical to conserving American society and conservative cultural values, because everything we oppose (generational underclass living on the dole, big government, race-based diversity aka. no creepy-a-—cracker mandates, GBLQPERVERTS etc.) is embraced by Corporate America or will be at the very latest in the next decade.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Minimum wages are in general a really, really bad idea. Additional personnel costs are simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Consequently, inflation results. That reduces the buying power of everybody, including those who make more than the minimum wage.
You are right that (particularly) publicly held corporations are not ideological and will support whatever government policy (for good or for bad) that will help them increase their profitability or increase market share. This is a major reason why they don't object to increased regulation that impacts an entire horizontal. They can work through or around the regulation because of their size and it provides a major barrier to entry to possible new entrants in the market.
And, FRiend, it is a decidedly unconservative to support government legislation that punishes particular companies (or people) who have committed the sin of being successful.