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.