"Cheryl" > wrote in message
b.com...
> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for hourly
> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here
> recently.
>
> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just because
> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on.
>
> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more for
> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news
> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend
> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
> tiny:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>
> “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
> stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer
> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to
> threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need
> us.”
..


I find this very telling:

"D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large
retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s
minimum wage,"

so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive disadvantage
to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for the
gander.