On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:58:12 PM UTC-4, 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.
>
>
>
> 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.�
>
>
>
> All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is
>
> that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow
>
> modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of
>
> whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm...
>
> --
>
> CAPSLOCK�Preventing Login Since 1980.

Good - maybe the Wal-tide is turning at last. No company can grow forever. One planned in my area got nixed - good.