On 7/11/2013 7:41 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "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.
>
>
Good gravy, it's DC, they're likely all sauced!