On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:33:07 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>they can afford to pay it.
>
>Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.

They will keep out a number of large retailers. Is that the job of
our government?

I'm certainly not a bleeding heart liberal, but I also think any
business should be paying a minimum of $10 for any help. But it
should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.

The despising of Wal Mart will also keep out Home Depot, Lowes, some
supermarkets (or at least limit the store size) etc. If, however,
those store do elect to build there, they also steal much of the labor
away from the other retailers. The little store with five employees
suddenly loses them all as they jump ship for $150 a week, or, he has
to pay that much more.

The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
an interesting experiment.