Washington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

  • metta

    Posts: 39150

    Jul 12, 2013 10:15 PM GMT
    Washington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 11:25 PM GMT
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 11:55 PM GMT
    Sharpton said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.


    Whats your solution?


    When it comes to Washington DC and how corrupt and dysfunctional it has become under one party rule? There's a lot. But for starters, reduce the red tape to allow for more businesses regardless of who, to enter the city limits, tax residents and businesses for the services they use, use the Mitch Daniels approach to outsourcing - outsource any service where there are at least three possible vendors in the phone book, reduce and simplify zoning restrictions to development. Let consumers decide if they want to keep a WalMart in business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 12:23 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.


    If you knew anything about DC you would then know this isn't that bad of a bill. People can't live in DC making 10 bucks an hour. If Walmart doesn't want to pay this type of wage then they don't have to come here, the city will be much better off with corporations that do pay their employees accordingly. This isn't the middle of Arkansas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 12:26 AM GMT
    msuNdc said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.


    If you knew anything about DC you would then know this isn't that bad of a bill. People can't live in DC making 10 bucks an hour. If Walmart doesn't want to pay this type of wage then they don't have to come here, the city will be much better off with corporations that do pay their employees accordingly. This isn't the middle of Arkansas.


    You're right - they would be so much better off without the option to even earn what Walmart was offering because we all know that Walmart is forcing them to take jobs? And in the meantime, all of Walmart's consumers would be so much better off without the competition and without the cheaper prices. Because we all know that only the rich buy from Walmart and they can afford to pay more?

    Economics surprisingly works whether you're in the middle of Arkansas or in Washington DC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 12:32 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    msuNdc said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.


    If you knew anything about DC you would then know this isn't that bad of a bill. People can't live in DC making 10 bucks an hour. If Walmart doesn't want to pay this type of wage then they don't have to come here, the city will be much better off with corporations that do pay their employees accordingly. This isn't the middle of Arkansas.


    You're right - they would be so much better off without the option to even earn what Walmart was offering because we all know that Walmart is forcing them to take jobs? And in the meantime, all of Walmart's consumers would be so much better off without the competition and without the cheaper prices. Because we all know that only the rich buy from Walmart and they can afford to pay more?

    Economics surprisingly works whether you're in the middle of Arkansas or in Washington DC.


    So are you gonna complain when the number of people on government aide increases in DC because they can't afford basic essentials because Walmart isn't willing to pay a standard rate?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 12:35 AM GMT
    msuNdc said
    riddler78 said
    msuNdc said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.


    If you knew anything about DC you would then know this isn't that bad of a bill. People can't live in DC making 10 bucks an hour. If Walmart doesn't want to pay this type of wage then they don't have to come here, the city will be much better off with corporations that do pay their employees accordingly. This isn't the middle of Arkansas.


    You're right - they would be so much better off without the option to even earn what Walmart was offering because we all know that Walmart is forcing them to take jobs? And in the meantime, all of Walmart's consumers would be so much better off without the competition and without the cheaper prices. Because we all know that only the rich buy from Walmart and they can afford to pay more?

    Economics surprisingly works whether you're in the middle of Arkansas or in Washington DC.


    So are you gonna complain when the number of people on government aide increases in DC because they can't afford basic essentials because Walmart isn't willing to pay a standard rate?


    Only if your argument is that the people who would apply for these jobs aren't already collecting some form of assistance. Also only if you're also arguing that those who are on assistance or for the much larger number of working poor wouldn't benefit significantly from having the option to buy from Walmart. Are you suggesting that people would be forced to take the Walmart jobs? That it's better that they aren't even given the option?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 12:48 AM GMT
    I think a good question here is why should Walmart pay so little to its workers (in the US, NOT Canada) that they must rely on food stamps etc?

    They are an extremely efficient and prosperous company. UP here they not only have to pay the minimum of 10.00 an hour, they also provide benefits without batting an eye, and they're expanding, not shrinking or running away.

    Recently, one of the Walmarts up here began cutting hours and customers suffered with long line ups, incorrect pricing and other mistakes. A group of shoppers pooled their annual spending totals and presented them to the head honcho and said if he wanted this money he had to provide adequate staffing levels. He did.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 1:02 AM GMT
    meninlove said I think a good question here is why should Walmart pay so little to its workers (in the US, NOT Canada) that they must rely on food stamps etc?

    They are an extremely efficient and prosperous company. UP here they not only have to pay the minimum of 10.00 an hour, they also provide benefits without batting an eye, and they're expanding, not shrinking or running away.

    Recently, one of the Walmarts up here began cutting hours and customers suffered with long line ups, incorrect pricing and other mistakes. A group of shoppers pooled their annual spending totals and presented them to the head honcho and said if he wanted this money he had to provide adequate staffing levels. He did.



    So you would agree that WalMart should be discriminated against that they should pay a minimum of $12.50 versus competitors and others who must pay a minimum in DC of $8.25?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 1:03 AM GMT
    As for Walmart workers getting health benefits thru Medicaid, that's due in part to a policy liberals argued for:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html

    Wal-Mart's critics also paint the company as a parasite on taxpayers, because 5 percent of its workers are on Medicaid. Actually that's a typical level for large retail firms, and the national average for all firms is 4 percent. Moreover, it's ironic that Wal-Mart's enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn't blame the company. Besides, many progressives favor a national health system. In other words, they attack Wal-Mart for having 5 percent of its workers receive health care courtesy of taxpayers when the policy that they support would increase that share to 100 percent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 1:16 AM GMT
    oh and by the way - I'm sure you will find a way to blame Walmart for this:

    "Obamacare Is Turning Walmart Workers Into Temps"
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2013/06/14/obamacare-is-turning-walmart-workers-into-temps/
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jul 13, 2013 2:43 AM GMT
    All we need is to have enough cities say, "No" to the Walmart blood sucking leeches, and they'll have to pay their employees a living wage plus benefits.
    They definitely can afford it, since the 4 or 5 Walton family members who own the company are worth about $25 billion, EACH.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 3:50 AM GMT
    msuNdc said
    riddler78 said
    msuNdc said
    riddler78 said
    metta8 saidWashington, D.C., city council passes large retailer living wage bill despite Walmart threats

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222617/-Washington-DC-city-council-passes-large-retailer-living-wage-bill-despite-Walmart-threats


    What idiots. Yes, let's hurt the poor by making them pay more for the things they buy. This again reinforces the policies that liberals support seem to ultimately hurt the poor the most currying favor for the connected lobbyists even when they claim their policies are on behalf of the poor.


    If you knew anything about DC you would then know this isn't that bad of a bill. People can't live in DC making 10 bucks an hour. If Walmart doesn't want to pay this type of wage then they don't have to come here, the city will be much better off with corporations that do pay their employees accordingly. This isn't the middle of Arkansas.


    You're right - they would be so much better off without the option to even earn what Walmart was offering because we all know that Walmart is forcing them to take jobs? And in the meantime, all of Walmart's consumers would be so much better off without the competition and without the cheaper prices. Because we all know that only the rich buy from Walmart and they can afford to pay more?

    Economics surprisingly works whether you're in the middle of Arkansas or in Washington DC.


    So are you gonna complain when the number of people on government aide increases in DC because they can't afford basic essentials because Walmart isn't willing to pay a standard rate?
  • metta

    Posts: 39150

    Jul 13, 2013 4:04 PM GMT
    “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level – I mean the wages of decent living.”

    ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2013 4:38 PM GMT
    metta8 said“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level – I mean the wages of decent living.”

    ~Franklin D. Roosevelt



    So then why discriminate against Walmart? The sum of all the other businesses have far more employees. The attack on firms because of their success is even more unamerican and your quote isn't even remotely applicable in this case.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Jul 27, 2013 4:43 PM GMT
    I would never set foot into a Wal Mart. They are nothing more than a goddamned, glorified junk store.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2013 7:46 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    They definitely can afford it, since the 4 or 5 Walton family members who own the company are worth about $25 billion, EACH.


    The Waltons done good.

    waltonsfamilynewpic.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2013 9:25 PM GMT
    Are we to assume that it's a head of household with no other income that must be expected to live on 10 bucks an hr? Or is it that the other adult in the household works there or somewhere else also? And that entry level positions must all be paid so much? What are we to demand that entry level people get paid when they know next to nothing? And don't they earn more with promotions and raises as time goes on? Or can't they get up the ambition to move on to better paying jobs? I worked for minimum wage as a teen, and couldn't wait to move on to better things(and I sure as hell did!). And, as someone else said, for the people who need decent items really cheap, they will benefit greatly from stores like Walmart. I go there for certain things, even though I could "afford" to go to a higher priced retailer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2013 10:29 PM GMT
    Blakes, this is somewhat of a a jobless recovery. Business is booming; tech is replacing workers, along with offshoring and bringing in temp foreign workers. Here's a neat trick by the companies hiring from companies bringing in foreign temps. If Wally mart hires them, for example, they can say each one is an independent contractor, so no payroll tax among other things. This is going on right up through blue collar and white collar jobs.

    scrooge-mcduck.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2013 11:18 PM GMT
    I don't see how govt mandates will change that for the better. In fact, govt mandates have CAUSED these problems.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Jul 29, 2013 6:30 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI don't see how govt mandates will change that for the better. In fact, govt mandates have CAUSED these problems.


    there is no more "working up the ladder" anywhere. outsourced adults do the work the teens used to do, and babyboomers wont ever retire so there is no ladder to move up on since it never moves there is never any space to move up. if a job starts to pay a decent wage, they bribe politicians to let them bring in foreign workers or outsource to third world countries to pay third world wages but the people have to live in first world expenses here, it is unsustainable, it is causing the END OF AMERICA. You cant have 200 rich people owning all the money and the rest being serfs AND protect the rich from revolution - that is unfair and immoral.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2013 10:34 AM GMT
    Yes, it's possible, but it doesn't apply in every single case. It bothers me too, when old timers refuse to retire as if they're gonna live for ever. But sooner or later they have to retire, and people move up. And not every job can be filled with an unskilled laborer from another country. Where I work, for example, applicants must pass tests, go through long training periods, and have union seniority. Yes, I support the union I am a member of. This is where I disagree with the right, because unions balance the power a little, hopefully in favor of the worker, so that the employer doesn't shit all over the workers every chance they get. When it comes to money, checks and balances are the best things we have to try and maintain some fairness. However, do not assume that I am suddenly now a socialist.
  • metta

    Posts: 39150

    Sep 12, 2013 4:00 PM GMT
    DC Mayor Vetoes Living Wage Bill After Walmart’s Protests

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/12/2611231/mayor-vetoes-living-wage/


    https://www.facebook.com/grayformayor