Forum Post: Wal-Mart Says It Will Ditch Store Expansion After D.C. 'Living Wage' Vote
Posted 10 years ago on July 10, 2013, 8:09 p.m. EST by Narley
(272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
So, are no jobs better than low paying jobs?
Every time the Walmart Family closes a store,an angel gets her/his wings.Now,winged angels are more helpful than miniscule paychecks that cannot go to people who will not grovel.We will just have to make our own jobs,that's all.
Totally agree Buck - small local business - a thing we used to call a community/ town instead of a Vonnegut style "Welcome to the Monkey House" where we are surrounding our lives around a really ugly business physically and ethically that lacks spirit, conscience and imagination and is completely void of anything innovative or frankly even low priced: because once they drive everybody else out, they jack their prices back up - people only believe they are low because there is no comparison anymore - ALL the big box stores are electronically price setting. So not only do they have all their products made with slave labor but they don't pass slave labor savings onto you; they pocket the mark-up AND what they spend in oil and gas to ship it all, CAUSES your OIL prices to RISE.
LOL-then they Cremate Care at Bohemian Grove in order to feel no pangs of remorse.Maybe somebody will someday explain to me why it is these f*ckers have a right to live.
Why not give them what they want leave the government out of it (funny Wal -Mart you've been so involved with city governments in the past even getting yourselves elected to city boards) - let them UNIONIZE instead!!!
So RETAIL WORKERS - you are now this nation's largest jobs industry - and you can't be outsourced - that gives you POWER!!!! ...so would you rather make $30.00 an hour with full bennies and healthcare that costs almost nothing...or keep making peanuts???!!! It's in your hands ... unionize online and get your share
http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/How-to-Join-or-Form-a-
Occupy is there a way we can help the retail workers mass unionize? Perhaps through this site? So they can be anonymous and not risk getting fired or retaliation. The Big boxers are getting desperate and will do anything to crush this because they know that if the workers catch onto this power that they hold - they will be forced to pay them a fair share of the profits.
Show them what a nation full of service sector means - it means pay up buttercup !!! - can't send this one overseas
hmm city governments requiring monopolies to allow up or down votes on unionizing with anti-retaliation legislation (imagine) ??!
Would you rather have 12 dollars courtesy of the oh so generous legislators who make way more than that a year themselves with full bennies while you still get none and are part-time - or via Union: $30.00 an hour mandated full time with full benefits let's do the math - Unionizing is way better than the increase (I'd go with that)
When you've got nothing to lose you've got everything to gain !!!!
Hoh Hoooo!!! Yes it is, damn right it is, let's go fishing, let the Walton clan man the registrars if they don't want to pay a wage. If all you got to do to get rid of WalMart and get your city back is raise wages a tiny bit, then hell yes, it's a good idea!
If a walmart worker strikes for two weeks but gains a pay increase to $30.00 an hour then they will make back an estimated 5 times their regular pay when the strike is over - worth the wait I would say and a nice little vacation at that?!
holy crap. what nonsense.
Walmart's profit margin 3.6%
Apple's profit margin 24%
why aren't people going after apple to pay 300 bucks an hour?
So fucking what if Walmart's profit margin is 3.6%. If it were 2.6% they'd still make billions. You're arguments aren't worth shit.
[Removed]
WalMart made $17 billion last year and have about 2.2 million employees. That is about $7700 per employee per year. Definitely more money to go around but even if this place was a cooperative the workers wouldn't be getting more than a few more bucks per hour before those profits dried up. Even less if you also give better benefits.
Three quarters of a million of those employees, give or take, are overseas. Costco's average wage is $17 an hour with much better benefits, and I don't think Costco's CEO is hurting much financially.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/17/walmart-pays-workers-poorly-and-sinks-while-costco-pays-workers-well-and-sails-proof-that-you-get-what-you-pay-for/
Great article, elf. Walmart tied or ranked last six years in a row on the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Obviously they're doing something seriously wrong. I hope they keep it up.
So only their American workers deserve any extra pay? I am sure they pay their workers in Mexico or China a very livable wage.
That's not what I'm saying. But address Costco's difference in pay instead. If Costco can pay it's people a decent wage, why can't Walmart?
To be honest, I have no idea. I have not actually ever been to a Costco and I have never read their SEC filings. If I had to take a wild guess it would be that they employ far fewer people per square foot of retail space because I can't imagine their gross margins being that much higher than WalMart's.
What is a fact is that WalMart made $17 billion last year world wide and employed 2.2 million people, which is about $7700 per employee.
WalMart COULD pay more and provide benefits but it would require they either 1) charge more for their stuff 2) pay less for their stuff or 3) lay off a chunk of their workforce. All 3 of these options obviously have drawbacks for the working poor. #1 would seem to be the best option but one of the only reason people shop there is the dirt cheap prices on stuff because lets be real, it is not fun to go to a WalMart.
You know what? They could raise the price of everything in the store a few pennies, even a nickle, pay their people a decent wage and they'd still make billions in profits. They'd still have millions of people shop there every year. Guaranteed.
The important question of this thread is:
"Gnomunny, do you have your cardboard box living quarters ready for the end of days?"
HAHAHA
Not worth any more of my time. Later guppy.
World wide? starting with the lowest level employees? Sounds good to me. Employees should not only receive a living wage but they should also share in their ( the business ) success. As the business success depends on those employees doing their jobs.
It's become obvious beppe's a Walmart shill. We've been railing against Walmart for quite a while now, and apparently they noticed. And along comes beppe. The proof? This is the only thread beppe's commented on.
And any future comments by it on other threads will be meaningless. It's been OUTED.
corp(se)oRATist shill - lets not belittle the idiot - regarded as just being a wallfart shill is - well - so ( unfairly? ) limiting.
Wallfart, heheheh. I like it.
Yeah, beppe's probably just one of its usernames. I just noticed it posted elsewhere too. Not surprisingly, it's on elf3's post about unionizing. Suspicions confirmed.
Yep - dissing the workers of the world - what an asswipe.
Yeah, beppe thinks minimum wage is perfectly fine at its 1950's (!) level, adjusted for inflation.
They're so transparent, aren't they? Reminds me of "freemarket5555." Don't mean to keep beating a dead horse but it came on here spouting GMO's are a boon to mankind, dared us to prove otherwise BUT forbade us from linking to the two main studies that proved otherwise, wanting us to find things more obscure. Once a few of us did so, BAM, no more freemarket5555.
Well just what the hell is wrong with us for doubting these people ANYWAY?!!!???!?!!
OH - right - I forgot - they are hired or insane or both.
My Bad.
" Occupy! Making zero difference one post at a time!!! "
[-] 0 points by beppe - proving it's shill self to be pure waste of space from very 1st comment.
Hey @beppe - Query: R U a Bot?
Please see my latest effort on this, just a bit of fun
http://occupywallst.org/forum/money-money-money/
[Removed]
This is a double victory. Higher wages and no WalMart. Sounds good to me. This is the only story on here of late that interests me and it's worth commenting on to keep at the top. In fact, this victory should be permanently fixed at the top of the forum. Have a good day.
I agree :-) & in a tad more touchy-feely stylee :
"Wealth Inequality In America" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM [6:24] ;
''A Socialism for the 21st Century'', by Prof. Richard D. Wolff : http://truth-out.org/news/item/16797-a-socialism-for-the-21st-century &
"Why Socialism ?" by Albert Einstein : http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism .
per ardua ad astra ...
Foink you, wally world - you foinking piggs !
I agree, but I wouldn't have been nearly that polite, heheh. Personally, i've never spent a penny in that place and never will.
Boycott Wally World!!
I don't understand the question.
The article says Wal-Mart killed plans for two new stores and suspend construction on two other stores in the D-C area after the city council voted for a living wage roughly $5 higher than minimum, wage. The article also said Wal-Mart will reconsider its decision if the mayor veto's the new rule.
So, If Wal-Mart has to pay the new "living wage" they won't have stores there. Meaning if Wal-Mart will not put stores where the "living wage" is effect.
First off, do you have any problem with people making a living wage? Does $12.50 an hour sound unreasonable to you?
Narley, my man, where have you been during all the Walmart discussions we've had on this forum? I'd hate to think you're pro-Walmart. Have you ever seen the documentary 'Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices?' If not, I strongly recommend it.
Now, I'd love to continue this conversation, but first consider this: on average, for every one person employed at a new Walmart, the community loses 1.5 workers from other businesses forced to close. The article states Walmart will cancel three stores and halt construction on three already in the works.
The average Walmart store employs about 470 people. So, if those six stores open, Walmart will employ 2820 people, BUT the community will lose 4230 total from other businesses, meaning the DC area, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, will have another 1400 people out of work (actually 1410).
Hey, did you realize someone already posted about this today?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/should-walmart-make-good-on-their-threat-if-the-li/
No, I don’t have a problem with a living wage. But it’s more complicated than that. Pay scales will always fit the value and need of the job For instance, Jobs not requiring strong skill sets will pay less. Also, higher demand for specific skill sets will pay more. For instance, The best short-order fry cook in the world will never make much money; while highly educated computer programmers pay scales have gone downhill because the market is flooded. So, while I believe in a living wage, pay scales should also be determined by the value of the job itself.
As for Wal-Mart? (Oh lord, don’t get me started). I don’t shop at Wal-Mart. I only recently became aware of the ruckus about Wal-Mart. Actually I almost never shop at ANY chain or corporate store of any kind, including fast food joints. It’s a big deal for me. I shop at locally owned stores. I believe the very existence of large chain stores has caused the masses to become uber consumers. People now shop as entertainment. People buy every new shiny thing that comes along, I mean every piece of plastic junk they can find. They buy new cars and big screen TV’s faster than they can be made. Consumerism is a sickness that has warped our values ruins many lives.
I support small business and I shop over the internet. I will (and have) do without before I’ll shop at a corporate store or restaurant. Sorry for the rant. Rabid consumerism is a hot button issue for me. I don’t think enough people realize how much it ties into our other problems.
supply and demand baby !!!!- can't outsource these workers like they can the rest of the nation seen with manufacturing and technology - so NOW they are more VALUABLE.. these jobs are worth more - the big box workers are not part of a franchise one national two week strike and they could unionize making $30.00 an hour for good and teach Wal-Mart and the Waltons the lesson they deserve. as well as all the other big box perpetrators of outsourced manufacturing and Chinese slave labor. $30.00 an hour is still only a fraction of Wal-Marts profits - look at other unionized labor industries like UPS who pay well and still pull in record profits year after year.
if a walmart worker strikes for two weeks but gains a pay increase of $30.00 an hour then they will make back an estimated 5 times their regular pay when the strike is over - worth the wait I would say?
Where do you get these profit numbers from? I own a chunk of their stock from when I worked there in high school and college so I follow it pretty closely and their profits, while obviously large in sum, are really not that much per employee. They could definitely afford to pay them a living wage of $12 or $13 an hour but probably not much more. Definitely not anything near $30 an hour for your average worker.
Ah, now I understand your defending Walmart's low wage. You're a stockholder. Got it.
Yes, a whole $2500 worth after working there for 6 years making $7.50 an hour. I might as well be a board member haha.
I am merely stating facts which I know because I follow the stock, just as I follow all of the stocks I own. Facts which seem to be very lacking in this thread.
I don't get you, Nader. I don't get anyone that thinks the minimum wage, equal to the minimum wage of the 1950's for God's sake (adjusted), doesn't need to be raised. But then, with all due respect, you think the economy's just fine as well, so . . .
I get the impression you have a very narrow world view. You see people buying iPhones at your local mall and think everything's just peachy.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-to-be-deeply-concerned-about-the-global-economy-as-we-enter-the-2nd-half-of-2013
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/40-statistics-about-the-fall-of-the-u-s-economy-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe
http://gainspainscapital.com/2013/07/08/the-one-chart-that-proves-were-not-in-a-recovery/
I never said they shouldn't pay their employees more. I simply refuted elf3's comment about WalMart being able to pay their employees $30 an hour while still pulling a huge profit and then you come around and put words in my mouth.
They can afford to and should pay their employees more. Like I said I worked their making less than $8 an hour for 6 years. They can't, however, pay anywhere near $30 an hour with benefits. An extra $7700 a year probably pushes them to more like $12 an hour before the profits are gone. Raise everything by a nickel and you might push it up another couple bucks.
People like elf3 go around pulling numbers out of their ass, literally making them up out of thin air, and it just completely invalidates any point they are trying to make.
the economy won't keep running
if the consumers don't keep borrowing money to buy the product
I'll agree with you there, $30 an hour is wildly unreasonable. My mistake, I figured you were defending their low wages. Sorry 'bout that, I still have beppe's asinine comments about Walmart mulling around in my head.
No apology for the rant needed, I was glad to read it. I'm glad to see you're on the right side of the fence when it comes to the issue of mega-consumerism and huge corporations and how they're directly responsible for a lot of the problems.
But as far as the living wage proposal, I fully understand the reasoning behind low skills = low pay and vice versa, but consider that, adjusted for inflation, the $12.50 we're talking about doesn't even come close to the minimum wage in the late '60's. There was a good video last night or the night before with an interview with Ralph Nader. I don't remember what figure he threw out there but I think in order to equal the minimum wage in 1969, adjusted, it was a lot higher than $12.50. Hell, I think it was closer to $20. So, I don't think $12.50 is in any way unreasonable, especially considering most of Walmart's workers are part-timers anyway.
Yea, $12/hour really isn't a living wage. Still, having to pay such a salary would make some small businesses go out of business.
I've told this story before but bears repeating. When I got out of the army in the sixties I got a job making $60/week. I wasn't rich, but I could pay the rent, have a car and feed myself. In 1968 I got a higher paying job making $1.95/hour. I had a wife and infant at home and another baby on the way. I worked a lot of overtime to be able to buy a house; and the rest is history. Ultimately I retired early from a near $100K/ year job. The trick for me was choosing the right career. The moral of that story is today's college students need to put a lot of thought into what they choose as a career. Employers don't care about your liberal arts education.
Well, that's the beauty of the DC plan; it only affects large retailers with annual sales of a billion or more. It won't apply to small companies or mom and pops.
16.00 to 17.00 would be closer to today's needs. For a starting minimum "living wage."
An absolute bare minimum. I can't remember the thread that Nader interview was on, but it was definitely worth a listen. I don't know if you saw it, I think you bailed fairly early last night.
Yeah I did bail out early - wasn't here for most of the day actually - yesterday and today - extra-strength sick days.
Yeah you are likely correct - I was thinking back to the days when I was still working - 2008.
I was pretty surprised at the number Nader threw out. It was a lot higher than I expected, but it made sense. I can remember mom sending us up to the corner store in the late '60's, early '70's and buying a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread and getting change back from a dollar. Now, a gallon of milk and loaf of bread cost you five bucks, give or take. If today's minimum wage is $8.25 (ridiculous any way you look at it), $20-something an hour sounds about right.
When you figure that a blue collar worker could afford a home with a wife and like 5 to 7 kids and a car and have savings and take the family on a vacation - yeah - that is a huge difference to today.
See, that's the statistic right there that explains the true state of affairs. In the glory days of post-WWII up till the mid-70's, a single blue collar wage earner could do just that. In order for things to be right, that needs to be the reality again.
Straight out of high school - 1976 - a friend of mine got a job paying 25.00 an hour working in a foundry - nothing high tech - but it was hard and hot and dirty work. Doubt if you could get half that pay for that job today.
Damn, $25 an hour in 1976?? People would've killed for that kind of wage. Hell, I was on top of the world making $8.08 an hour as a union roofer. Of course, there was probably another $5 or $6 in benefits that I didn't see on my check. What did you start out at?
My first-year apprentice wage was 1.46 per hour in '78. I don't get excited about anything less than 35 per these days. Usually quote my time at more than 70 per, to allow for client dally-dillying.
I'm assuming you're an independent contractor, so $70 an hour doesn't sound unreasonable. I remember when I was roofing our company would triple the workers wage when bidding to cover benefits and overhead.
On a semi-related note, sometimes we'll take a car down to Midas to get a bid on needed repairs. They're right across the street from an Auto Zone and sometimes you'd see a Midas guy go over there to buy a part they're out of. Long story short, Midas doubles the retail price of parts when they give someone a bid. Considering they probably get a discount, it's probably triple their actual cost.
Minimum something like 5 or 6 bucks an hour. Yeah that 25.00 was astounding.
$6 an hour to start for a young person back in the mid-'70's wasn't all that unreasonable. $25 was unheard of back then for blue collar. So, is your buddy still with us or did his job eventually kill him?
It has been awhile - it may have been 4.50. My friend? He quit smoking and took up distance running ( figured it would be good for his lungs ) lost a ton of weight. We went different directions in the mid 80's - so I don't know how he has weathered the years since.
Huh - a living wage works to drive off the vampire. Who knew? Well I think we all suspected.
I pray the mayor stands tall and votes for it. I'm hoping the people of DC aren't falling for this Walmart propaganda bullshit and will threaten the mayor with his job if he knuckles under.
Did you read both these articles? The nerve of Walmart and their bullshit:
"Wal-Mart Threatens to Pull Out of D.C."
"The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers . . ."
That tells you who's running the show, doesn't it?
". . . would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores."
The four Walton kids have a combined net worth of $130 Billion dollars. Four fucking people. And they act like this will break them. What they're afraid of, is it will set a precedent for other communities across the US. THAT'S what they're afraid of.
Perhaps they just went too far - Hey? Would like - NO - LOVE to see them get slapped down big time. As a general start to sanity breaking out nation wide.
That's what I'm hoping, too. A chink in their armor. Can you imagine? Monsanto AND Walmart finally having to consider something other than their own twisted worldview? That would be, and I hate to use this word but, awesome.
Yep - the big A - and it would be the m word as well - miraculous.
Yep, it would be miraculous. That's why I'm not holding out much hope. You have a local mayor coming up against the largest corporation on the planet. I'm sure he's getting a whole lot of phone calls from 'higher ups' in DC.
But I will keep my fingers crossed.
Me too - would love to hear a mouse roar.
Hopefully someone will post the results next week. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet the mayor will cave. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time a community said no to Walmart, so it's a tough call. What it's going to take is the DC community itself. Let's hope they rally to the cause.
But if that mayor has higher political aspirations, and most do, those calls he's getting could be the big decider. As in, "you'll never work in this town again." He's the mayor of DC, so you'd assume he has his eye on a bigger chair.
Or as in - Don't fold Mayor we need to stop this cycle of underpaid public supported workers. Give em HELL.
Rally People!!!!!!
A win and the mayor could probably run on any ticket and have major support - of working people.
Let's hope he's progressive in the literal sense. That he's a visionary. That he can see beyond the smoke and mirrors, beyond all the bullshit of MNC's.
Let's hope he's watched "WalMart: The High Cost of Low Prices," heheheh.
Keep hope alive - NOTHING is over yet. {:-])
Absolutely - lets hope he goes on the internet and gets real news and sees the articles about how mega monsters are destroying this planet - and regardless of being a progressive or anything else - IS SANE - And CARES.
There may be hope yet, although you know how power can corrupt. The Mayor sounds like he's a man of the people. At least he started out that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_C._Gray
There may be hope, my friend.
I do have a problem with the living wage crap.
1) According to the gubment, there is no inflation problem. So why do people need these raises? Do we have inflation or not? That's a yes or no answer.
2) Just randomly raising people's wages without an accompanying raise in their productivity causes inflation. So, because I don't want bread to cost $20 a loaf someday, maybe we should figure out why inflation is in the future and fix it before it gets out of hand.
Could it be because Washington DC & the federal reserve are printing $85 billion a month out of thin air and buying up bad mortgages with that money and putting it on the backs of future tax payers?
3) This problem has nothing to do with Walmart. The real problem is bad federal policy. Walmart and living wages are just shiney objects. Stop falling for them.
Ah, I see what side of the fence you're on. I wondered when I read your link on your post. Still, welcome aboard, it's always good to hear all sides.
"According to the gubment, there is no inflation problem." You really believe that, beppe? Really?
Productivity is at an all-time high, yet the minimum wage is lower, adjusted for inflation, than it was back in the '60's, for Christ's sake. You think that's fair?
Washington's printing up $85 billion a month to mask the true state of the economy. Wait till that spigot gets turned off. Inflation? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
Walmart and the present minimum wage are absolutely a BIG part of the problem.
Seeing as you just crawled out from under a rock, or out of a cave somewhere, you best do a whole lot more homework on what's really going on, then get back to us. Sound good?
The side of the fence I'm on is sound economics.
You spend all your time railing for raising the minimum wage and nothing for turning off that spigot. Why is that?
Why don't you work to change the big things that are killing our economy (the federal reserve) and stop wasting your energy on the small things. If the fed unscrews itself, the minimum wage won't be a problem in the first place. The cause-effect IS the money printing.
Sorry, if we raise the minimum wage, things just get more expensive for everyone. What gives money it's value is it's rarity. If we keep printing more and handing it out, of course it becomes less rare and worth less dollar for dollar.
You best do some homework, huh?
BTW, a raise on the minimum wage, but only for Walmart? That makes no sense, but that's what this proposal is all about. Raising the minimum wage selectively. I'm not even sure it's legal.
Ever hear of the "equal protection clause"? Get back to me. Sound good?
[Removed]
No...NO jobs, better than being extorted , by socialist union and liberal assholes. Well done Wal Mart.
Liberals...always willing to punish to the poor for political gain.