4 ms·

Fantasic! Now these potential Wal-Mart employees are back to making $0.00/hour. Oh, and they have to pay more for their groceries now, too. Congratulations on

by drcode 13y ago

Fantasic! Now these potential Wal-Mart employees are back to making $0.00/hour. Oh, and they have to pay more for their groceries now, too. Congratulations on a job well done, DC Council!

imgabe 13y ago
Assuming Wal-Mart actually sticks to its ultimatum. If one of the most successful businesses in history can't find a way to turn a profit in one of the most populous, affluent areas in the country while paying employees enough to live in the same area, then maybe they shouldn't be in business after all. Like the article says, Wal-Mart needs DC. DC doesn't need Wal-Mart. CostCo has no problems here and they pay around $15/hour.
- txttran 13y ago
  CostCo and Wal-Mart have pretty different business models despite being competitors. It should be noted that CostCo's retail business, without the membership fees, is actually not profitable. It's the membership fees that put them in the black. Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-w...
- drcode 13y ago
  CostCo is the "Country Club" of grocery stores, with an up front membership requirement. Poor people do not need more Country Clubs.
dccoolgai 13y ago
DC has enough people to create a market for retailers. It is not a question of if someone sells things, but whom. The idea that if these Wal-Marts don't move in, these people won't have jobs is a fallacy: They'll just have jobs working for a more responsible employer. As a resident of D.C., I'm happy with what the council has done here.
- drcode 13y ago
  Well, you shouldn't be happy. What will most likely happen is that SOME of those people will be able to get a job at a "responsible employer" but large numbers will become more destitute because of this decision. Guess what: CostCo et al employ FEWER people per dollar people spend in the store, which is why they can afford the higher salaries. They do not somehow magically generate money out of thin air and hand it to their employees out of the goodness of their heart.
  - imgabe 13y ago
    Look at it from the DC government's perspective. Wal-Mart is trying to get something valuable: access to a highly lucrative market. The DC government wants to get something in return: fewer people who require public assistance. The cost of living in DC is extremely high. If most of the jobs created by Wal-Mart leave the employees still requiring food stamps, subsidized housing, and free clinics. What's the point to DC in allowing them here? They may as well have kept on paying those people the food stamps anyway, without the added harm of destroying the small business Wal-Mart is no doubt going to steamroll over, and contributing to the homogenization of the US into one long blur of identical national chain stores. DC is not interested in subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. They're just leeching off the taxpayers.
    - drcode 13y ago
      > If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. This is the core flaw in your argument. First of all, it is obviously wrong on the surface (i.e. Wal-Mart reports profits every quarter) and even the argument you actually MEANT to make is wrong (No, it is not intrinsically better for society to have CostCo come in and hiring fewer employees and have more people needing full assistance, vs. WalMart come in and hiring more people needing partial assistance.)
      - 13y ago

by drcode 13y ago

Fantasic! Now these potential Wal-Mart employees are back to making $0.00/hour. Oh, and they have to pay more for their groceries now, too. Congratulations on a job well done, DC Council!

imgabe 13y ago

Assuming Wal-Mart actually sticks to its ultimatum. If one of the most successful businesses in history can't find a way to turn a profit in one of the most populous, affluent areas in the country while paying employees enough to live in the same area, then maybe they shouldn't be in business after all. Like the article says, Wal-Mart needs DC. DC doesn't need Wal-Mart. CostCo has no problems here and they pay around $15/hour.

txttran 13y ago
CostCo and Wal-Mart have pretty different business models despite being competitors. It should be noted that CostCo's retail business, without the membership fees, is actually not profitable. It's the membership fees that put them in the black. Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-w...
drcode 13y ago
CostCo is the "Country Club" of grocery stores, with an up front membership requirement. Poor people do not need more Country Clubs.

dccoolgai 13y ago

DC has enough people to create a market for retailers. It is not a question of if someone sells things, but whom. The idea that if these Wal-Marts don't move in, these people won't have jobs is a fallacy: They'll just have jobs working for a more responsible employer. As a resident of D.C., I'm happy with what the council has done here.

drcode 13y ago
Well, you shouldn't be happy. What will most likely happen is that SOME of those people will be able to get a job at a "responsible employer" but large numbers will become more destitute because of this decision. Guess what: CostCo et al employ FEWER people per dollar people spend in the store, which is why they can afford the higher salaries. They do not somehow magically generate money out of thin air and hand it to their employees out of the goodness of their heart.
- imgabe 13y ago
  Look at it from the DC government's perspective. Wal-Mart is trying to get something valuable: access to a highly lucrative market. The DC government wants to get something in return: fewer people who require public assistance. The cost of living in DC is extremely high. If most of the jobs created by Wal-Mart leave the employees still requiring food stamps, subsidized housing, and free clinics. What's the point to DC in allowing them here? They may as well have kept on paying those people the food stamps anyway, without the added harm of destroying the small business Wal-Mart is no doubt going to steamroll over, and contributing to the homogenization of the US into one long blur of identical national chain stores. DC is not interested in subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. They're just leeching off the taxpayers.
  - drcode 13y ago
    > If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. This is the core flaw in your argument. First of all, it is obviously wrong on the surface (i.e. Wal-Mart reports profits every quarter) and even the argument you actually MEANT to make is wrong (No, it is not intrinsically better for society to have CostCo come in and hiring fewer employees and have more people needing full assistance, vs. WalMart come in and hiring more people needing partial assistance.)
    - 13y ago