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.

On 7/11/2013 8:58 PM, Cheryl wrote:

> 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...

Oops, I meant to say that he refused to say that he was in favor or not,
since the passing of this bill would help his constituents more than
Walmart not being required to pay more, but he is holding back. To me
that speaks volumes about his side, which is on the good of Walmart, not
the good of the people.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 7/11/13 8:58 PM, 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....

There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
and three more planned. All may be scrapped.

-- Larry

On 7/11/2013 9:11 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> On 7/11/13 8:58 PM, 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....
>
> There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
> and three more planned. All may be scrapped.
>
> -- Larry
>
I thought I heard on the radio story there were already 3.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:11:58 -0400, pltrgyst > wrote:

> There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
> and three more planned. All may be scrapped.

Good, I hope they all go. One Walmart is one too many.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/12/2013 12:34 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:11:58 -0400, pltrgyst > wrote:
>
>> There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
>> and three more planned. All may be scrapped.
>
> Good, I hope they all go. One Walmart is one too many.
>
Low income residents of DC, and I believe they comprise most of the
city, may feel otherwise.

On 7/12/13 10:57 AM, casa bona wrote:

> Low income residents of DC, and I believe they comprise most of the
> city....

Wrong. 8

-- Larry

On 7/12/2013 3:12 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> On 7/12/13 10:57 AM, casa bona wrote:
>
>> Low income residents of DC, and I believe they comprise most of the
>> city....
>
> Wrong. 8
>
> -- Larry
>
>
Ok, not most, but plenty?

http://www.dcfpi.org/who-is-low-income-in-dc

The District of Columbia’s poverty rate is far above the national
average and has remained high even in periods of strong economic growth.
Some 133,000 residents — nearly one-quarter of the population — are
low income, which in 2006-2007 corresponded to an income at or below
$24,475 a year for a family of three.[i] DC’s low-income population is
so large that it would overflow RFK Stadium and the Nationals’ Ballpark
combined.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ome/51944034/1

WASHINGTON (AP) – Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of
Americans, almost 1 in 2, have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on
earnings that classify them as low income.

"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.

On 7/11/2013 9:41 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.
>
>
Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio
said that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries
just to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid
question, though.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
b.com...
> On 7/11/2013 9:41 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.
>>
>>
> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
> though.
>
Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
Graham

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> b.com...
>> On 7/11/2013 9:41 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio
>> said that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries
>> just to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid
>> question, though.
>>
> Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?

so it is the lawmakers' job to "level the playing field"? And I see no
mention of where the cutoff is, i.e. which are the "some large retailers".

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:31:10 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

> so it is the lawmakers' job to "level the playing field"? And I see no
> mention of where the cutoff is, i.e. which are the "some large retailers".
>
I don't think they should be treated any differently from any other
retailer.... which means they shouldn't be required to pay any more in
wages AND they shouldn't be given any more "incentives" to conduct
business in the area. Hopefully, they will buy a clue and decide to
go elsewhere because the "welcome" mat is clearly NOT out for them.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:



>>>
>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
>> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
>> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
>> though.
>>
>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
>Graham
>

Buying power has nothing to do with wages paid, or being forced to
pay. What does the buying power of a small card and gift shop have to
do with the wages paid as compared to a big retailer of home goods
like Lowes?

If the government wants to demand a certain wage must be paid, it
should apply equally to every business in that category.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:58:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>
>>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
>>> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
>>> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
>>> though.
>>>
>>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
>>Graham
>>
>
>Buying power has nothing to do with wages paid, or being forced to
>pay. What does the buying power of a small card and gift shop have to
>do with the wages paid as compared to a big retailer of home goods
>like Lowes?
>
>If the government wants to demand a certain wage must be paid, it
>should apply equally to every business in that category.

Below is the gist of the bill. What they are saying is, we will take
the money from big companies and spend it as we see fit. This is
going to hurt the small retailer they think they are protecting. The
mom & pop stores will have to pay those wages to keep help.


Should the bill be signed by Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and pass a
congressional review period, retailers with corporate sales of $1
billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger
would be required to pay employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The
city’s minimum wage is $8.25, a dollar higher than the federal minimum
wage.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:58:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> If the government wants to demand a certain wage must be paid, it
> should apply equally to every business in that category.

Agreed. Clearly, they do NOT want Walmart there.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
>> On 7/11/2013 9:41 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
>> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
>> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
>> though.
>>
>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
>Graham

That's like asking why should Graham be compensated for having a small
weewee... your analogy sure sounds like penis envy. Times change,
small mom n' pop retailers can no longer exist for the same reason
there are no more rotary dial telephones and manual typewriters...
much better technology evolved. Graham, you have the IQ of a rock...
a small pebble. "Economies of scale" have always existed... doesn't
pay to operate the family farm anymore either... do you have any idea
what a pound of potatoes would cost if the small farmer had to make
payments on a $200,000 John Deere to farm his stinkin' 40 acres...
would cost over a buck a pound just to cover the cost of diesel. To
eliminate the big box retailers would be exactly like eliminationg the
major automakers... are you willing to pay Rolls Royce prices for an
automobile, Graham, you pinhead! And if not for cheap oriental labor
you couldn't be on usenet, because you couldn't afford a computer.
Yoose wanna double the price of unskilled US labor, yoose wouldn't
have a cell phone. I'm absolutely positive (no doubt whatsoever) that
Graham is UNskilled labor, if he's even employed.

"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
>>Graham
>
> That's like asking why should Graham be compensated for having a small
> weewee... your analogy sure sounds like penis envy. Times change,
> small mom n' pop retailers can no longer exist for the same reason
> there are no more rotary dial telephones and manual typewriters...
> much better technology evolved. Graham, you have the IQ of a rock...
> a small pebble. "Economies of scale" have always existed... doesn't
> pay to operate the family farm anymore either... do you have any idea
> what a pound of potatoes would cost if the small farmer had to make
> payments on a $200,000 John Deere to farm his stinkin' 40 acres...
> would cost over a buck a pound just to cover the cost of diesel. To
> eliminate the big box retailers would be exactly like eliminationg the
> major automakers... are you willing to pay Rolls Royce prices for an
> automobile, Graham, you pinhead! And if not for cheap oriental labor
> you couldn't be on usenet, because you couldn't afford a computer.
> Yoose wanna double the price of unskilled US labor, yoose wouldn't
> have a cell phone. I'm absolutely positive (no doubt whatsoever) that
> Graham is UNskilled labor, if he's even employed.

Wassamatter? The air conditioner failed in your trailer?

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!

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:41:12 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

> 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.

It sounds to me as if they don't want Walmart and that's the way to
"discourage" them.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats

Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
life in rfc.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

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.

On 2013-07-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.

The problem with low wages is, it forces workers to turn to the state
to get basic need services they cannot get with their wages. If a
family of four must go on food stamps cuz it cannot earn enough at a
paid job, the govt is in effect subsidizing that employer. This has
been at the heart of the good/evil debate about Walmart for years.
Too many of Walmart's employees must rely on the public dole to make
ends meet. This is one way Walmart maintains it's lower prices.

The other is not paying sales taxes to local govt. Almost all new
Walmart stores come with a reduced tax payout for the first five yrs.
This is typically obtained by (cough) convincing (cough) the local
govt to do it. IOW, the city coucil is paid off, the city loses
taxes, the county must pay subsistence level services to underpaid
Walmart employees. It's such a loss-loss situation for so many
places, they decline Walmart's offer to build.

Kicking all that aside, what does WW give the consumer? Lower prices,
right? But, at what cost? I never shopped at WW till I moved here.
Initially I saw bennies to shopping WW. Some goods were still USA
made and cheap. Now, 5 yrs later, almost all products I once saw as a
good buy have cheapened to the point I will no longer waste my money.
I still have a pair of winter gloves I bought at WW, but they're
pretty raggedy. I went to buy a new pair. No way! Cheapened way
beyond usability. Same with some waterproof mattress covers I've been
buying for Mom. Originally, they had a soft fabric layer over the
vinyl covering. Those are suddenly "out of stock", only to be
replaced by unacceptable plain vinyl covers at a lower price. Now I
must go looking for a higher priced equivelent. WW's relentless price
lowering policies look good to the consumer on some levels, but when
the mechandise becomes so shoddy it's unusable, of what benefit is
that?

Can I go back? No. WW drove the independent hardware store out of
business. They drove the Rexall out of business. Do I still shop
there. Gotta. In many instances, only game in town. OTOH, I'm sure
getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they
are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW.

nb

On 7/12/2013 8:25 AM, notbob wrote:

> OTOH, I'm sure
> getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they
> are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW.

I love online shopping. I started doing it when my back got so bad I
couldn't shop like a regular person because I just couldn't stand or
walk for very long. The drawback (!) is the number of shipping boxes I
accumulate. I have a big pile of them right now waiting for me to break
down and put out for recycling. Sometimes I feel like a cardboard box
hoarder. LOL

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 12 Jul 2013 12:25:46 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2013-07-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
>> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.
>
>The problem with low wages is, it forces workers to turn to the state
>to get basic need services they cannot get with their wages. If a
>family of four must go on food stamps cuz it cannot earn enough at a
>paid job, the govt is in effect subsidizing that employer. This has
>been at the heart of the good/evil debate about Walmart for years.
>Too many of Walmart's employees must rely on the public dole to make
>ends meet. This is one way Walmart maintains it's lower prices.
>
>The other is not paying sales taxes to local govt. Almost all new
>Walmart stores come with a reduced tax payout for the first five yrs.
>This is typically obtained by (cough) convincing (cough) the local
>govt to do it. IOW, the city coucil is paid off, the city loses
>taxes, the county must pay subsistence level services to underpaid
>Walmart employees. It's such a loss-loss situation for so many
>places, they decline Walmart's offer to build.
>
>Kicking all that aside, what does WW give the consumer? Lower prices,
>right? But, at what cost? I never shopped at WW till I moved here.
>Initially I saw bennies to shopping WW. Some goods were still USA
>made and cheap. Now, 5 yrs later, almost all products I once saw as a
>good buy have cheapened to the point I will no longer waste my money.
>I still have a pair of winter gloves I bought at WW, but they're
>pretty raggedy. I went to buy a new pair. No way! Cheapened way
>beyond usability. Same with some waterproof mattress covers I've been
>buying for Mom. Originally, they had a soft fabric layer over the
>vinyl covering. Those are suddenly "out of stock", only to be
>replaced by unacceptable plain vinyl covers at a lower price. Now I
>must go looking for a higher priced equivelent. WW's relentless price
>lowering policies look good to the consumer on some levels, but when
>the mechandise becomes so shoddy it's unusable, of what benefit is
>that?
>
>Can I go back? No. WW drove the independent hardware store out of
>business. They drove the Rexall out of business. Do I still shop
>there. Gotta. In many instances, only game in town. OTOH, I'm sure
>getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they
>are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW.
>
>nb

Sound and fury saying NOTHING! WTF do you think grubbermint gelt
comes from, the PRODUCTIVE people of course. I for one don't want to
pay to feed your useless ass... starve to death yoose lazy *******s.

On 12 Jul 2013 12:25:46 GMT, notbob > wrote:



>
>Can I go back? No. WW drove the independent hardware store out of
>business. They drove the Rexall out of business. Do I still shop
>there. Gotta. In many instances, only game in town. OTOH, I'm sure
>getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they
>are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW.
>
>nb

How did they put the small stores out of business? Did they blockade
them? Kidnap the owners? Picket lines?

The lack of customer is what put them under. People want to save a
buck, no matter the cost. They voted with their pocketbooks to go tot
he big stores. Remember in the 1970's when downtown was in a slow
death as the malls sprung up on the outskirts of town?

Between the big stores and the internet, small stores are going to
have a rough time unless they truly have a superior product and
service. Even the malls are hurting now between the big chain stores
like WM, Kohls, et.al. and on line shopping.

On 7/12/2013 5:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> 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.

Exactly. The minimum wage is way too low. People complain that Walmart
wages force people onto food stamps and they are right. An increase in
the minimum wage would take some (many) people off the food stamp program.

Also, I would refine the laws that define a part-time worker. Big
companies often classify people as part time workers (usually 30 hours a
week or less) and then schedule them for 40 or more hours a week to
avoid paying for benefits such as health care, etc.

Simple rule... if you work more then 30 hours a week two weeks in a row,
you are full time. That would stop that nonsense.

George L

On 7/12/2013 6:44 AM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/12/2013 5:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Exactly. The minimum wage is way too low. People complain that Walmart
> wages force people onto food stamps and they are right. An increase in
> the minimum wage would take some (many) people off the food stamp program.
>
> Also, I would refine the laws that define a part-time worker. Big
> companies often classify people as part time workers (usually 30 hours a
> week or less) and then schedule them for 40 or more hours a week to
> avoid paying for benefits such as health care, etc.
>
> Simple rule... if you work more then 30 hours a week two weeks in a row,
> you are full time. That would stop that nonsense.
>
> George L

Now you have rally hit on something with theta two week rule, that's
something that could, if carefully crafted be sensible.

I'd add the proviso that the 2 week trigger has to happen (x) number of
times per quarter, not just once.

From today's Wapo. Note the reference to Wegman's, and the fact that
Wal-Mart's average salary nationwide is $12.67 per hour:


"Wednesday’s vote on the District’s new “living wage” law had about a
decade of history behind it.
Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), a longtime friend of labor, has
tried several times to pass a bill mandating a higher minimum wages for
big box stores. In the past, they’ve been almost symbolic efforts, a
duty to the unions who knew they didn’t really have a chance.
As Wal-Mart announced plans for store after store last year, with little
resistance from the D.C. Council and and no binding community benefits
agreement, it appeared that the company’s triumph was complete.
And yet, when the final vote came on a bill that would require retailers
with more than a billion dollars in sales and operating in spaces larger
than 75,000 square feet to pay a minimum wage 50 percent higher than the
District currently mandates, eight council members voted yes.
Several of the votes were predictable: Council member Muriel Bowser
(D-Ward 4), for example, has two Wal-Marts coming to her ward, and is
conscious that Wegman’s — the New York-based grocery emporium highly
coveted by local leaders — wouldn’t come to an open development site at
Walter Reed if it were required to pay a starting wage of $12.50 an
hour. On the other side, colleagues Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Jim
Graham (D-Ward 1) are reliable union allies.
Council member Vincent Orange (D-At Large) surprised many Wilson
Building watchers when he pushed for the bill since during his first
stint on the council representing Ward 5, he was more pro-big box than
anyone. But big business abandoned him in his last election, spooked by
his link to a campaign controversy, leaving him to find a new
constituency to maintain his citywide perch. With such recent proposals
as a moratorium on speed cameras and the living-wage bill, he has a
populist drum to beat on the stump.
Mayoral candidate Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who frequently berates the
council for being anti-business, justified his vote in favor of the
living wage bill by saying that he’d traded it for a lower sales tax in
the budget. It’s a calculated step: While telling labor he’s got their
backs, he’s also telling business he doesn’t much care for the
legislation. And now he has more leverage as finance chairman to offer
tax breaks to businesses who find the higher minimum wage burdensome. “I
think that he’s thinking the real reason businesses come to the city is
that there are other incentives in place,” said Mike Wilson, the
legislative campaigner for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
Wal-Mart is adamant that it can’t pay a minimum wage of $12.50 but also
says that it pays an average retail employee wage of $12.67 nationwide.
Also, under the bill, it’s actually a wage rate, which means benefits
would be included, and the wage would likely be lower. It seems Wal-Mart
didn’t want to set a precedent for jurisdictions nationwide that might
consider doing something similar. After all, if this thing metastasized,
it could end up costing the company billions in profit.
Labor leaders, which drafted the bill originally, met with Wal-Mart
representatives to say they would pull the bill if Wal-Mart agreed to
collective bargaining. Predictably, the mega-retailer said no. “They
pulled out all the stops and said this is our number one priority,” said
a council staffer who requested anonymity to speak freely. “And when all
labor pulls in one direction, that is a powerful thing in this council.”
If the measure stands, whether or not Wal-Mart follows through on its
threat to leave D.C., unions will have avoided their nightmare scenario:
Having a low-wage, non-union competitor figuring into future bargaining
sessions with the area’s unionized grocers. “Giant and Safeway will then
be saying we’re losing money, we need givebacks from the workers,” said
Joslyn N. Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington Council,
AFL-CIO.
All of this, of course, depends on what Gray decides to do. He came to
power with labor’s help, and then turned around and made Wal-Mart a
cornerstone of his economic development strategy — he cares deeply about
the success of Skyland Town Center, which won’t happen if Wal-Mart pulls
out. Like nearly everyone else in this debate, he’s also likely running
for mayor.
Which still may not mean this never-ending game is over."

-- Larry

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> 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.

Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
died?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
> been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
> died?
>

They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
government however.

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:52 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
> > been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
> > died?
> >
>
> They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
> government however.

They didn't need to and the little guys were driven out of business
anyway. American greed in action... and I'm not talking about
Walmart. People in general seem to be too stupid to figure out that
you get what you pay for.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:05:40 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
>been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
>died?
..
But they are not paying a 50% premium over minimum wage. What is the
mom & pop store going to do when WM stats paying that much more for
help/ Where will they find workers and what will it do to their
prices.

It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:05:43 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:05:40 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
> >been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
> >died?
> .
> But they are not paying a 50% premium over minimum wage. What is the
> mom & pop store going to do when WM stats paying that much more for
> help/ Where will they find workers and what will it do to their
> prices.

Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story.
>
> It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.

Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/12/2013 4:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> 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.
>

I find a general agreement regarding the meddling and the potential
consequences were Wal Mart to knuckle under.

Your observation regarding other big box retailers like Lowes and so on
is accurate.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>
> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
> life in rfc.


Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.

Big deal.

Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.

They not only can afford it but is about time they did.

On 7/12/2013 11:59 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>
>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>> life in rfc.
>
>
> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>
> Big deal.
>
> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>
> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.

So because they are rich they should pay more?

What about non-family owned corporations?

Should Eddie Lampert pay K-Mart workers more?

"casa bona" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/12/2013 11:59 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>>
>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>>> life in rfc.
>>
>>
>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>>
>> Big deal.
>>
>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And
>> the
>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>>
>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>
> So because they are rich they should pay more?


They are rich BECAUE they pay so little. It's just pure greed and YOU get
to subsidize it.

>
> What about non-family owned corporations?

Same. We pay Exxon 5 billion a year just cuz theey are so nice.


> Should Eddie Lampert pay K-Mart workers more?


He could follow the Costco model. Which works. As it is he's just another
example of what is wrong witth the low wage model.

On 7/12/2013 1:09 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/12/2013 11:59 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>>>
>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>>>> life in rfc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>>>
>>> Big deal.
>>>
>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And
>>> the
>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>>>
>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>>
>> So because they are rich they should pay more?
>
>
> They are rich BECAUE they pay so little. It's just pure greed and YOU get
> to subsidize it.

No, they were rich because they built up and scaled out a major retailer
and took K-mart's market from them.

Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages?

Or for that matter Sears?

>>
>> What about non-family owned corporations?
>
> Same. We pay Exxon 5 billion a year just cuz theey are so nice.

Which family owns Exxon?

>> Should Eddie Lampert pay K-Mart workers more?
>
>
> He could follow the Costco model. Which works.

But he hasn't, has he?

In fact K-mart is a real estate play to him, isn't it?

> As it is he's just another
> example of what is wrong witth the low wage model.

I'll give you some high wage models: Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy.

You really want some of their action here?

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>
>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>> life in rfc.
>
>
> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>
> Big deal.
>
> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>
> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>
I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there is
a crime."
Graham