Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:19 AM
 
26,512 posts, read 15,088,692 times
Reputation: 14670

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Considering how many Walmart employees are on public assistance, it would actually save the tax payer more if they fold.
That report may be partially correct, but it is also skewed.

#1 Walmart employs a lot of elderly workers - especially some looking for semi-retirement - already on benefits including Social Security. It isn't fair to count Social Security as a subsidy to Walmart in this situation.

#2 If a poor mother with few skills and no college degree wants a part time job, because she has kids to raise...would she not still qualify for many benefits as any part time job she got would still leave her poor?

#3 Walmart pays and compensates the average in retail...in fact some studies suggest that overall compensation is slightly higher than Target on the whole - although Target beats out Walmart in some areas. Why no hate for other retailers when Walmart is compensating the prevailing wages for retail? Bogeyman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:30 AM
 
17,440 posts, read 9,275,650 times
Reputation: 11907
Default Classic Bait and Switch

Walmart spent 3 years working on this "deal" for stores in D.C., after the last 4 D.C Mayors came begging for them to open some Urban stores. 3 stores are under construction, 2 are ready to open this fall ...... they donated Millions to a variety of charities, agreed to use local minority contraction companies and hire local (D.C) people. These stores are planned for areas with very little retail in blighted areas. Walmart got no "tax incentives" to build the stores, in fact - it's been a battle all the way against the Leftist "I hate Wal-Mart crowd", while those that the stores would serve have been counting the days until the have a Wal-Mart.
Quote:
Well before it had any solid plans to open stores in the District, Wal-Mart joined the D.C. Chamber of Commerce and began making inroads with politicians, community groups and local charities that work on anti-hunger initiatives.

The campaign was matched with cash. Through its charitable foundation, Wal-Mart made $3.8 million in donations last year to city organizations including D.C. Central Kitchen and the Capitol Area Food Bank, according to a company spokesman.
I find it interesting that the city council came up with this living wage bill now that Wal-Mart is ready to open its doors in the District. There are any number of other chains that operate in D.C., but the bill is targeted only at big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Whole Foods, which all happen to be non-union. But it begs the question: Is there some reason why emplolyees at McDonalds, Starbucks, CVS, Subway, Home Depot, and 7-11 aren't covered? Those employees are also non-union and paid poorly, and they should be entitled to the same living wage as the workers at Walmart and Costco. If the council is going to take aim at non-union retailers, why exclude other large chains?

Of course, that would drive up the price of a grande blonde-roast triple skim chai no-whip crappicino. And there is no way that can happen. This type of do-good economic and social justice stuff can only be taken so far.

If "living wage" is so important - why didn't they make it a city wide deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:35 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,549,057 times
Reputation: 6392
This is one of the dumber things leftists have done in at least a week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:42 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,060,276 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
That report may be partially correct, but it is also skewed.

#1 Walmart employs a lot of elderly workers - especially some looking for semi-retirement - already on benefits including Social Security. It isn't fair to count Social Security as a subsidy to Walmart in this situation.

#2 If a poor mother with few skills and no college degree wants a part time job, because she has kids to raise...would she not still qualify for many benefits as any part time job she got would still leave her poor?

#3 Walmart pays and compensates the average in retail...in fact some studies suggest that overall compensation is slightly higher than Target on the whole - although Target beats out Walmart in some areas. Why no hate for other retailers when Walmart is compensating the prevailing wages for retail? Bogeyman.
That's just it.

Lefties create an enemy and demonize it regardless of the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:52 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,956,603 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
All this episode shows is the utter contempt liberals in particular white liberals have for poor people. It's ideology or nothing. Wal-Mart's workers are on public assistance they screech. Ok and considering they took the job what other options do they have? I guess liberals prefer they stay at home. Whole Foods pays its workers the same and bans Spanish yet nary a peep from liberals.Why because liberals patron Whole Foods. How many people on food stamps shop at Wal-Mart compared to Whole Foods?

The areas in Dc where Wal-Mart was going to open were in poor Black areas where grocery stores and business in general are nearly non-existent. One center where the store would be located has been without an anchor for 23 years but hey Wal-Mart's bad! So no jobs for the poor Blacks in the neighborhood.
The remedy is not to just allow Walmart to exploit workers. The remedy is to raise the minimum wage to a level that brings workers above the poverty line. There is something wrong with someone working full-time and still being eligible for SNAP and Medicaid. What that essentially is, is the taxpayer subsidizing Walmart's labor costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:56 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,956,603 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
This is one of the dumber things leftists have done in at least a week.
So the government should allow itself to be intimidated and threatened by corporations? If the government doesn't play by Walmart's rules Walmart will take the ball and go home.

Paying a living wage isn't unreasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:58 AM
 
17,440 posts, read 9,275,650 times
Reputation: 11907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
This is one of the dumber things leftists have done in at least a week.
This is going to be one of the cancelled stores ..... Skyland Town Center
Quote:
Skyland Town Center is an exciting mixed-use development planned for Southeast Washington, D.C. Bordered by Alabama Avenue, Naylor Road and Good Hope Road, the project will include 342,000 square feet of retail space anchored by Wal-Mart, 476 residential units and a beautiful town square. The project will be built in stages with ground breaking on Phase I scheduled for the Spring of 2014.
It's been in development for 20 years, located in Ward 7. Nothing there now but an abandoned shopping strip center in a poor economic area. The Congress even kicked in $28 Million of our tax money to help get this project off the ground.
Quote:
The Vision
A 20-year-old dream, conceived by Ward 7 residents when this 18.5-acre site in Southeast Washington, D.C. was declared a Redevelopment Zone in the late 1980’s, Skyland Town Center is on its way to becoming a reality. The development will transform a disjointed retail area with limited offerings into a cohesive, well-designed, prominent living, shopping and gathering place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 05:00 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,956,603 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby View Post
Walmart spent 3 years working on this "deal" for stores in D.C., after the last 4 D.C Mayors came begging for them to open some Urban stores. 3 stores are under construction, 2 are ready to open this fall ...... they donated Millions to a variety of charities, agreed to use local minority contraction companies and hire local (D.C) people. These stores are planned for areas with very little retail in blighted areas. Walmart got no "tax incentives" to build the stores, in fact - it's been a battle all the way against the Leftist "I hate Wal-Mart crowd", while those that the stores would serve have been counting the days until the have a Wal-Mart.


I find it interesting that the city council came up with this living wage bill now that Wal-Mart is ready to open its doors in the District. There are any number of other chains that operate in D.C., but the bill is targeted only at big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Whole Foods, which all happen to be non-union. But it begs the question: Is there some reason why emplolyees at McDonalds, Starbucks, CVS, Subway, Home Depot, and 7-11 aren't covered? Those employees are also non-union and paid poorly, and they should be entitled to the same living wage as the workers at Walmart and Costco. If the council is going to take aim at non-union retailers, why exclude other large chains?

Of course, that would drive up the price of a grande blonde-roast triple skim chai no-whip crappicino. And there is no way that can happen. This type of do-good economic and social justice stuff can only be taken so far.

If "living wage" is so important - why didn't they make it a city wide deal?
I agree, the Living Wage law should apply to all employers. The easier thing to do is pass a Minimum Wage law that's higher than the federal law. Many states do this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 05:02 AM
 
17,440 posts, read 9,275,650 times
Reputation: 11907
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So the government should allow itself to be intimidated and threatened by corporations? If the government doesn't play by Walmart's rules Walmart will take the ball and go home.

Paying a living wage isn't unreasonable.
No it's not "unreasonable", so why does it only apply to Wal-Mart and is it "reasonable" for them to pass this bill a couple of months before the stores open? How come there was never any talk over the past 3 years of this "living wage"? IF Wal-Mart agrees to Unionize, then they get the same "waiver" that the other Union workforce companies have .... even though none of those companies pay anything close to the extortion of raising the wage by 50%.

Exactly who is really doing the intimidation and threatening?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,514,999 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
So let me get this straight, you hate welfare, but you're ok with Walmart getting welfare from the government? You can bet that 99.9%-100% of the potential Walmart workers in DC would still be on public assistance just like the many many many Walmart workers across the country. Corporate welfare at its finest
Only time a leftie complains about someone on public assistance is if they happen to work at Wal mart.

Otherwise, they want to sign everyone up and anyone that wants to get people off public help is an *******.

The problem is not wal_mart. The problem is these programs exist in the first place. Eliminate these failed public assistance crap and people that earn less money will do things like find a roommate, cut the cable or phone bill in half, get a little smaller apartment. Prudent things. It is also motivation to work hard and get a better paying position. Giving them extra money because they don't make much only encourages shiftlessness for millions of people.

LOLs. Only time lefties complain about welfare is if it's for a Wal-Mart employee. Otherwise they are all about the expansion of the welfare state. The hypocrisy knows no bounds. lols.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top