Export thread
Washington D.C. to Wal-Mart: We're raising minimum wage... but just for you
#1
Tress
Tress
Okay, not just Wal-Mart... but mostly.
Story here:
TL;DR version:
Any corporation in Washington D.C. that makes over 1 billion dollars in revenue at any store larger than 75,000 feet would have a different minimum wage compared to other companies ($12.50/hour compared to DC's usual $8.25/hour). Unless the store has unionized, since those stores are exempt.
Is this a good idea, or a bad one? Why?
Story here:
Wal-Mart faceoff with DC fuels minimum wage debate
SAM HANANEL
WASHINGTON (AP) — The bitter standoff between Wal-Mart and Washington, D.C. officials over the city's effort to impose a higher minimum wage on big-box retailers is fueling a wider debate about how far cities should go in trying to raise pay for low-wage workers — and whether larger companies should be required to pay more.
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, is fuming about a "living wage" bill approved by the D.C. Council that has an unusual twist — it would apply only to certain large retailers, forcing them to pay employees at least $12.50 an hour. That's nearly 50 percent higher than city's minimum wage of $8.25 an hour. The measure is being cheered by unions and worker advocates who have long complained about Wal-Mart's wages and working conditions. Opponents call it an unfair tactic that will discourage companies from doing business in the city.
Wal-Mart has threatened, if the bill becomes law, to cancel plans for three of the six stores it hopes to build in some of the city's poorest neighborhoods that are sorely in need of economic development. The measure is now before District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray.
Some economists say targeting large retailers or other industries that can afford to increase wages may be an effective way to raise pay to even higher levels than a broad-based minimum wage. The district's bill applies to stores of 75,000 square feet or larger and annual corporate revenues of at least $1 billion.
"A large retailer can more easily absorb a pay hike than a corner store," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a prominent supporter of raising the minimum wage. Large stores are "less likely to shut down or cut back on employment" in response to such an increase, he said. But Dube cautioned that a targeted hike might make it harder for Wal-Mart and other big box stores to pass on the wage hike as a price increase since smaller retailers could still keep prices low.
The minimum wage in the nation's capital already is higher than the federal rate of $7.25 an hour. Other cities and states that have sought to raise the minimum wage above what is required have applied the hike to all businesses. San Jose, Calif., recently raised its minimum from $8 to $10 an hour and San Francisco's rate of $10.55 an hour is the highest in the nation. Still, no other city has singled out certain businesses for higher wage rates. The Chicago City Council tried to pass a similar measure seven years ago, but it was vetoed by then-mayor Richard M. Daley. Opponents have suggested the district's bill may be subject to a legal challenge, but those prospects are uncertain.
President Barack Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum to $9 an hour and boosting it annually to keep pace with inflation. Many Wal-Mart workers already make $12.50 an hour — the rate set by the district's bill — or more, but the average sales associate earns $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group.
Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo questioned why the district measure excluded unionized stores such as Safeway and Giant, suggesting the bill is specifically targeting non-union stores. He said most of the company's 1.4 million workers are full-time and about 75 percent of the store's management teams started as hourly associates. The average pay of full-time workers is between $50,000 and $170,000 a year, Restivo said.
David Neumark, an economics professor at the University of California Irvine, has argued that raising the minimum wage is bad for workers because it discourages employers from hiring and leads to fewer jobs. He said Wal-Mart's low prices are more important to helping low-income workers. "We can talk about wages, but if you can lower prices, that's as good as raising wages," Neumark said. "And of course helps a lot more people."
Forcing Wal-Mart to raise its salaries could create more gradual pressure on smaller businesses to boost wages over time, said Michael Reich, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "A lot of people would be trying to get jobs at Wal-Mart," he said. "That labor market pressure is going to raise wages at smaller stores, just because Wal-Mart is such a big employer."
But business groups call the idea outrageous and unfair. "By any analysis this is a really flawed proposal that's also very discriminatory," said David French, senior vice president of the National Retail Federation. "The assumption is that retailers make a lot of money, therefore they can pay higher wages and therefore you can impose higher costs by fiat," he said. "That doesn't necessarily reflect reality." Retailers are typically low-margin businesses, French said. While they move a lot of products, he said retail profitability is less than many other similarly situated businesses.
The district measure could also affect other retailers like Best Buy and Macy's. Business groups are also concerned a precedent-setting law in Washington, D.C., could see similar laws crop up elsewhere. "The political forces that have brought the D.C. Council to the brink of economic suicide are the same political forces at work in other cities," said French.
There is ample precedent for living wage laws that impose minimum wages on companies doing business with state and local governments. More than 140 cities and counties across the country have enacted such laws that require businesses receiving government contracts or subsidies to pay workers a rate higher than the federal or state minimum wage. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact a living wage bill, which currently requires employers with state contracts to pay either $12.49 an hour or $9.39 an hour, depending on where the services are performed.
SAM HANANEL
WASHINGTON (AP) — The bitter standoff between Wal-Mart and Washington, D.C. officials over the city's effort to impose a higher minimum wage on big-box retailers is fueling a wider debate about how far cities should go in trying to raise pay for low-wage workers — and whether larger companies should be required to pay more.
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, is fuming about a "living wage" bill approved by the D.C. Council that has an unusual twist — it would apply only to certain large retailers, forcing them to pay employees at least $12.50 an hour. That's nearly 50 percent higher than city's minimum wage of $8.25 an hour. The measure is being cheered by unions and worker advocates who have long complained about Wal-Mart's wages and working conditions. Opponents call it an unfair tactic that will discourage companies from doing business in the city.
Wal-Mart has threatened, if the bill becomes law, to cancel plans for three of the six stores it hopes to build in some of the city's poorest neighborhoods that are sorely in need of economic development. The measure is now before District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray.
Some economists say targeting large retailers or other industries that can afford to increase wages may be an effective way to raise pay to even higher levels than a broad-based minimum wage. The district's bill applies to stores of 75,000 square feet or larger and annual corporate revenues of at least $1 billion.
"A large retailer can more easily absorb a pay hike than a corner store," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a prominent supporter of raising the minimum wage. Large stores are "less likely to shut down or cut back on employment" in response to such an increase, he said. But Dube cautioned that a targeted hike might make it harder for Wal-Mart and other big box stores to pass on the wage hike as a price increase since smaller retailers could still keep prices low.
The minimum wage in the nation's capital already is higher than the federal rate of $7.25 an hour. Other cities and states that have sought to raise the minimum wage above what is required have applied the hike to all businesses. San Jose, Calif., recently raised its minimum from $8 to $10 an hour and San Francisco's rate of $10.55 an hour is the highest in the nation. Still, no other city has singled out certain businesses for higher wage rates. The Chicago City Council tried to pass a similar measure seven years ago, but it was vetoed by then-mayor Richard M. Daley. Opponents have suggested the district's bill may be subject to a legal challenge, but those prospects are uncertain.
President Barack Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum to $9 an hour and boosting it annually to keep pace with inflation. Many Wal-Mart workers already make $12.50 an hour — the rate set by the district's bill — or more, but the average sales associate earns $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group.
Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo questioned why the district measure excluded unionized stores such as Safeway and Giant, suggesting the bill is specifically targeting non-union stores. He said most of the company's 1.4 million workers are full-time and about 75 percent of the store's management teams started as hourly associates. The average pay of full-time workers is between $50,000 and $170,000 a year, Restivo said.
David Neumark, an economics professor at the University of California Irvine, has argued that raising the minimum wage is bad for workers because it discourages employers from hiring and leads to fewer jobs. He said Wal-Mart's low prices are more important to helping low-income workers. "We can talk about wages, but if you can lower prices, that's as good as raising wages," Neumark said. "And of course helps a lot more people."
Forcing Wal-Mart to raise its salaries could create more gradual pressure on smaller businesses to boost wages over time, said Michael Reich, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "A lot of people would be trying to get jobs at Wal-Mart," he said. "That labor market pressure is going to raise wages at smaller stores, just because Wal-Mart is such a big employer."
But business groups call the idea outrageous and unfair. "By any analysis this is a really flawed proposal that's also very discriminatory," said David French, senior vice president of the National Retail Federation. "The assumption is that retailers make a lot of money, therefore they can pay higher wages and therefore you can impose higher costs by fiat," he said. "That doesn't necessarily reflect reality." Retailers are typically low-margin businesses, French said. While they move a lot of products, he said retail profitability is less than many other similarly situated businesses.
The district measure could also affect other retailers like Best Buy and Macy's. Business groups are also concerned a precedent-setting law in Washington, D.C., could see similar laws crop up elsewhere. "The political forces that have brought the D.C. Council to the brink of economic suicide are the same political forces at work in other cities," said French.
There is ample precedent for living wage laws that impose minimum wages on companies doing business with state and local governments. More than 140 cities and counties across the country have enacted such laws that require businesses receiving government contracts or subsidies to pay workers a rate higher than the federal or state minimum wage. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact a living wage bill, which currently requires employers with state contracts to pay either $12.49 an hour or $9.39 an hour, depending on where the services are performed.
Any corporation in Washington D.C. that makes over 1 billion dollars in revenue at any store larger than 75,000 feet would have a different minimum wage compared to other companies ($12.50/hour compared to DC's usual $8.25/hour). Unless the store has unionized, since those stores are exempt.
Is this a good idea, or a bad one? Why?
#2
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
#3
strawman
strawman
#4
Tress
Tress
#5
strawman
strawman
#6
Tress
Tress
#7
GasBandit
GasBandit
Coming soon: the 74,000 sq ft walmart.
Actually... come to think of it we just got one of those here.
Actually... come to think of it we just got one of those here.
#8
Tress
Tress
#9
strawman
strawman
#10
Zappit
Zappit
#11
Sparhawk
Sparhawk
#12
Shawn
Shawn
#13
Bubble181
Bubble181
#14
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
#15
Covar
Covar
#16
Krisken
Krisken
#17
strawman
strawman
#18
Krisken
Krisken
#19
strawman
strawman
#20
Krisken
Krisken
#21
strawman
strawman
#22
GasBandit
GasBandit
#23
strawman
strawman
#24
Krisken
Krisken
#25
Eriol
Eriol
#26
papachronos
papachronos
#27
Krisken
Krisken
#28
PatrThom
PatrThom
#29
Krisken
Krisken
#30
GasBandit
GasBandit
#31
papachronos
papachronos
#32
strawman
strawman
#33
Eriol
Eriol
#34
strawman
strawman
#35
Tress
Tress
#36
Krisken
Krisken
#37
strawman
strawman
#38
Krisken
Edit: Ok, lets go here- if I had to choose someone to be treated fairly, a nebulous corporation or people, I'm always going to choose people. You can choose corporations all you want.
Krisken
Some companies need to be reminded of fairness. Companies don't get to be treated fair, they've already weighted the system in their favor.[DOUBLEPOST=1374012377][/DOUBLEPOST]I don't care if you disagree.
Edit: Ok, lets go here- if I had to choose someone to be treated fairly, a nebulous corporation or people, I'm always going to choose people. You can choose corporations all you want.
#39
strawman
strawman
#40
Krisken
Krisken
#41
strawman
strawman
#42
Krisken
Krisken
#43
GasBandit
GasBandit
#44
strawman
strawman
#45
Krisken
Krisken
#46
strawman
strawman
I still wish I knew what corporate greed meant, but no one has yet defined it in a way that is objective and measurable. 
The communism thing is a bit over the top, but when the government regulates people and corporations based on their success rather than regulating everyone equally, there is a distinct resemblance.
The communism thing is a bit over the top, but when the government regulates people and corporations based on their success rather than regulating everyone equally, there is a distinct resemblance.
#47
Krisken
My point with everything here is simply this- large business in America currently holds too much power. Financially and politically.
Krisken
The problem I have with it is it is used as a boogyman. Instead of admitting there are levels of communism in our society and a reason for allowing a reasonable amount into our system to help stem the tide of corruption from capitalism (just as in a communist society they need a reasonable amount of capitalism to limit the tide of corruption from communism), we truck on with these tired tropes.I still wish I knew what corporate greed meant, but no one has yet defined it in a way that is objective and measurable.
The communism thing is a bit over the top, but when the government regulates people and corporations based on their success rather than regulating everyone equally, there is a distinct resemblance.
My point with everything here is simply this- large business in America currently holds too much power. Financially and politically.
#48
PatrThom
PatrThom
#49
Bubble181
"measurable" nor "objective" are possible for such a term. "Corporate greed" refers to corporations who put too much emphasis on profit (margin) or bottom line and do this at the cost of human welfare/product quality/employee health. I'm sure you can think of more and better examples than I can. An oil company pays their drill people in the middle of the sea by Cambodjan worker laws, ships sailing under Nicaraguan flags, Walmart-style shops firing all cashiers at the start of summer to replace them with temp student workers, only to rehire them after summer (Carrefour actually does this every year, don't know if Walmart does it but hey, thread title), games companies making Call of Warcraft XVII instead of trying new IPs, new concepts or original games - all of them are often cited as "corporate greed".
In a well-working system, a corporation has to have a basic amount of greed: giving everything back, wanting to make the very best product with super happy employees and bollocks the cost, isn't a good business model - unless you're something like Rols Royce. And they, of course, get their too high prices considered "corporate greed". Making Rolls Royces at Kia prices, turning no profit whatsoever, is no way to run a business, unless in the USSR. It doesn't work there, either, because laborers have no reason to ensure quality or work hard.
Too much greed should auto-correct: consumers choosing the competition because of the lack of quality or price gouging you can often see at work. Consumers changing their buying/using habits because of ethical reasons, eh, it happens when someone points it out in a large campaign (Nike and such having to pay labor more than $1 an hour etc - the "clean clothes" campaigns,....). Consumers changing their habits because local people aren't treated properly? Good luck - I don't think I've ever seen someone not buy something because the guy who's stocking it doesn't get a dental plan or "only" makes $8.25 an hour.
In our current situation, median and average household income is low compared to average prices, and because of media and commercial interests, people feel a constant need to do/have/see more things than they can easily afford. Rather than having a bit less, but all ethical and "good", almost everyone is willing to compromise such things for "more for less". As long as that continues, companies like Walmart who sell "cheap, but don't ask where it came from" will make big profits.
To get back to my original point, though, "corporate greed" can't be defined any more objectively or measurably than regular old human greed. What's the tipping point between "thrifty", "good with money", "doesn't just throw his money at anything and everything" and "greedy"?
Bubble181
I still wish I knew what corporate greed meant, but no one has yet defined it in a way that is objective and measurable.
"measurable" nor "objective" are possible for such a term. "Corporate greed" refers to corporations who put too much emphasis on profit (margin) or bottom line and do this at the cost of human welfare/product quality/employee health. I'm sure you can think of more and better examples than I can. An oil company pays their drill people in the middle of the sea by Cambodjan worker laws, ships sailing under Nicaraguan flags, Walmart-style shops firing all cashiers at the start of summer to replace them with temp student workers, only to rehire them after summer (Carrefour actually does this every year, don't know if Walmart does it but hey, thread title), games companies making Call of Warcraft XVII instead of trying new IPs, new concepts or original games - all of them are often cited as "corporate greed".
In a well-working system, a corporation has to have a basic amount of greed: giving everything back, wanting to make the very best product with super happy employees and bollocks the cost, isn't a good business model - unless you're something like Rols Royce. And they, of course, get their too high prices considered "corporate greed". Making Rolls Royces at Kia prices, turning no profit whatsoever, is no way to run a business, unless in the USSR. It doesn't work there, either, because laborers have no reason to ensure quality or work hard.
Too much greed should auto-correct: consumers choosing the competition because of the lack of quality or price gouging you can often see at work. Consumers changing their buying/using habits because of ethical reasons, eh, it happens when someone points it out in a large campaign (Nike and such having to pay labor more than $1 an hour etc - the "clean clothes" campaigns,....). Consumers changing their habits because local people aren't treated properly? Good luck - I don't think I've ever seen someone not buy something because the guy who's stocking it doesn't get a dental plan or "only" makes $8.25 an hour.
In our current situation, median and average household income is low compared to average prices, and because of media and commercial interests, people feel a constant need to do/have/see more things than they can easily afford. Rather than having a bit less, but all ethical and "good", almost everyone is willing to compromise such things for "more for less". As long as that continues, companies like Walmart who sell "cheap, but don't ask where it came from" will make big profits.
To get back to my original point, though, "corporate greed" can't be defined any more objectively or measurably than regular old human greed. What's the tipping point between "thrifty", "good with money", "doesn't just throw his money at anything and everything" and "greedy"?
#50
GasBandit
GasBandit
#51
MindDetective
MindDetective
#52
Krisken
Krisken
#53
GasBandit
GasBandit
#54
strawman
strawman
#55
GasBandit
GasBandit
#56
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
#57
Krisken
Krisken
#58
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
#59
strawman
strawman
#60
GasBandit
GasBandit
#61
Krisken
Krisken
#62
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
#63
GasBandit
GasBandit
#64
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
#65
GasBandit
GasBandit
#66
Covar
Covar
#67
Krisken
Krisken
#68
strawman
strawman
#70
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
#71
Krisken
Krisken
#72
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
#73
Krisken
Krisken
#74
strawman
strawman
#75
GasBandit
GasBandit
#76
MindDetective
MindDetective
#77
GasBandit
GasBandit
#78
MindDetective
MindDetective
#79
GasBandit
GasBandit
#80
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
#81
PatrThom
PatrThom
#82
Frank
Frank
#83
mikerc
mikerc
#84
GasBandit
GasBandit
#85
Krisken
Hell, Stienman and I disagree ALL THE TIME and we're still cool.
Krisken
I promise, it wasn't me just being flippant. I argue with a lot of people.
Hell, Stienman and I disagree ALL THE TIME and we're still cool.
#86
strawman
strawman
#87
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
#88
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
#89
Krisken
Krisken
#90
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
#91
Krisken
Krisken
#92
PatrThom
PatrThom
#93
strawman
strawman
#94
Krisken
Krisken
#95
Terrik
Terrik
#96
Frank
Frank
#97
Timmus
Timmus