*** required *** post at least one original post and one reply ***
This is awesome politics. Walmart had planned on building three stores in DC (which is interesting unto itself in terms of the Walmart business model: going urban reflects the demographic change in the last 5-10 years in the repopulation of cities). Its competitors, obviously don’t like this. Along with assorted ideological opponents, the DC Council (home rule) moved to block Walmart enacting a requirement that retailers with total corporate sales over $1 billion and retail space in DC over 75,000 sq ft., must pay $12.50 an hour. This requirement exempts retailers with unionized workforces (grocery stores mostly) and any other retailer that is already established.
If this sounds like a Bill of Attainder, there’s a good reason for it. It is. In the spirit of literacy requirements for voting, the DC Council is targeting Walmart — or not? You decide.
The DC Mayor can still veto the Council’s decision (Congress could otherwise legislate over it), so it will be interesting to see what the Mayor does. Walmart’s announcement of pulling out as per the below article is designed to pressure the Mayor to veto the Council decision. If the Mayor vetoes it, I would suggest that the Council knew that in advance in order to allow them to vote against Walmart while at the same time letting the stores in. Hypocritical? Political. We’ll see.
Is an essentially arbitrary application of the law disguised in “fairness” with its conditions of $1 billion in revenue, 75k sq footage, non-union workforce and new construction? Or is it a fair process and application of the law?
Feel free to bring in other articles and research. For example, the state of Maryland targeted Walmart for special taxation based on similar criteria. Walmart represents “creative destruction” and it offend many political constituencies and politicians. Some observers say Walmart has destroyed fair competition while others credit Walmart for the single largest transfer of wealth in history by creating savings in the cost of goods.
Go!
– Bromley
======================
Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2013
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it was scrapping plans to build three stores in Washington, D.C., after the city’s council passed a bill late Wednesday that would require big retailers to pay starting wages that are 50% higher than the city’s minimum wage.
The retailer also said it would review its legal and financial options on the only other stores it has in the district, three that are still under construction. Wal-Mart had warned in an op-ed article in the Washington Post on Tuesday that it would pull out of the city if the District of Columbia’s council passed the bill, called the Large Retailer Accountability Act of 2013.
“This was a difficult decision for us—and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents—but the Council has forced our hand,” Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo in a statement released after the 8-to-5 vote.
The bill requires retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and with stores of at least 75,000 square feet to pay workers starting salaries of no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.
The measure includes an exemption for unionized businesses and gives existing big stores, which include Target Corp. and Macy’s Inc., four years to comply. Target and Macy’s didn’t immediately respond to calls for comment.
The bill could still be blocked if Mayor Vincent C. Gray vetoes it or if Congress successfully uses its local control to keep the legislation from taking effect. A spokesman for the mayor said he had no official comment, but had previously said he would consider vetoing it.
Council members were still in session Wednesday evening and couldn’t be reached for comment.
That’s just wrong and right in a way. Wrong being its clearly targeting Big Companies, mostly Walmart, and not small businesses. It is good by giving small businesses in the area a chance to survive and driving away big companies that would run them out of business. There are more arguments but i will leave them for everyone else.
A better way to support small business without the question of unconstitutionality would have been a limitation on the number of stores in the chain, proposed before contracts or plans had been made.
While we can argue whether it is wrong morally or ethically, the issue still stands: was it wrong from a political and legal standpoint? Not really. And therefore, while it seems unfair, it is simply using the system to your advantage – which is, in essence, a form of piracy. And we all admire piracy, don’t we?
Even if this law is fair on its face, it is still wrong if it has a descriminatory effect. Seeing how corporations are people. The only problem I would see in rejecting this law is that big corporations are not considered a suspect class, and so if the DC council has a justified goal, and they can rationally connect it to the law, then it will easily pass rational basis.
A very similar scenario happened in my city. The council passed an ordinance banning all chain restaurants and stores with more than three chains in the franchise within city limits. Starbucks was able to donate a few thousand dollars to all the local fundraisers and get its contract signed before the bill was passed, but many chain stores planning on building were forced to the next city over. While it can be argued that the local stores are better and tourism has increased because of it, it seemed like an obvious breach of the constitution. If Walmart had already made extensive plans with contractors in the DC area, the bill appears quite unconstitutional.
The fact that all chain restaurants and stores with more than three chains in the franchise were banned seems wrong. Not only does it seem wrong from a moral standpoint, but it seems wrong from an economical standpoint. Although franchise stores often times close out smaller competing businesses, they cause others to step up and challenge them. From a standpoint of a person who lives near almost no franchises, the local businesses are great, but for some things, like electronics, there are no stores that can offer the availability, price, and convenience that franchises can offer. If a large franchise came to our island, people would more quickly adopt new technologies, and hopefully people would purchase more. Because of this, the economy would grow.
I disagree with you Ethan, the smaller businesses challenge each other enough just fine. Stores like Walmart, Costco, and Sams Club are notorious for destroying small business because the smaller businesses simply cannot compete with the low prices of franchise stores . It does not matter how much Mikes Electronics steps up (Mike himself could have created electricity), he and his store will never be able to compete with the low prices of bigger business. Moreover, I would think it would be better for the economy if there were restrictions placed on franchise stores because it would cause more small businesses to compete with each other rather than all of them having to compete with the franchise stores.
Our main electronics store on island is called Mike’s Electronics, actually (did you just use a generic name, or did you look my island up?). Although Mike’s Electronics may not be able to step up, the larger franchises will provide a more consumer-friendly alternative. Instead of having a highly marked up price due to a monopoly, a franchised store would have to conform in part to the franchise’s nationwide prices. There would also be a larger selection of goods, as Mike’s only offers a small selection of goods. Finally, stores like Mike’s often sell goods to a very niche market, and can still charge reasonable prices, because the chain stores will not carry the item. The smaller stores will stay open because they sell things that are not sold in the large franchises. The island of St. Croix saw it happen when a Home Depot opened. Many of the smaller stores closed, because they offered an inferior selection at a higher price, while many of the loved stores on island stayed open because people A, wanted to shop locally, and B, could only obtain certain items. There are some things you have to go to Gallow’s Bay for, just like there are some things that you would have to go to Mike’s Electronics for, or you would have to go to Plaza Extra Supermarket for, and especially things that you would need to go to Eat @ Cane Bay for, instead of strolling down to Home Depot, Best Buy, Walmart, or McDonalds.
Clarification:
– “Franchise” is a business that leases its name and business model to others to run.
– “Chain” is a series of commonly-owned businesses.
I personally don’t really see a problem with this. I mean, yes, it is definitely manipulation on some level. While you can argue that the bill will help small businesses, etc, the timing cannot be ignored. Depending on the mayor’s decision, it is either the city using its power to block Wal-Mart, or it is a much more elaborate, predetermined plan. Neither way is right, per se, but they are both simply political. Things like this happen all of the time, and they will continue to happen no matter what. As terrible as it may sound, bad behavior is almost always good politics.
There is always a deeper meaning in things and we aren’t in DC so we wouldn’t get the full news. By the timing it seems like they are targeting Walmart, which doesn’t make sense to me. Why target Walmart? Was it because they were putting three in at one time?
I agree that most of the time (today anyway) bad behavior is good politics, but I truly don’t see this as bad. I think the timing is not a problem, could they be targeting Walmart? Possibly. But I simply view this as the DC locality viewing Walmart and stores like it (abusive/overpowered retail) as a problem and trying to fix it. As we talked about in class, some amendments to the constitution were added after a resolution was found in many states (direct election of senators). I view this as something similar; government fixing a problem once it got out of hand (in this case the wage).
This is definitely a bill of attainder, a bill that is only targeting Walmart and other high profit businesses. Wouldn’t a bill taxing people with higher incomes more also be a bill of attainder? If so, then why is this often proposed? Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional?
A bill taxing people with higher incomes is different from this situation, it’d be voted on. So I don’t think it would be a bill of attainder. Yes, this blockage of Walmart may be unconstitutional (it’s debatable..) but taxing people with higher incomes is a different scenario.
Ethan I also disagree with you saying this is bill of attainder. I do not feel that this bill was passed just to give the finger to Walmart. I say this because of a report published by the House Democrats stating that as a result of Walmart’s low wages the state of Wisconsin has to pay 900,000$ in welfare to Walmart employees (this is just one store). So now put this into perspective, if we at least could come to the conclusion that, some of Walmarts employees are paid so little it is a necessity for them to be on welfare then is the city Council justified in asking Walmart (and other big franchises as Walmart is most likely not the only contributor to this) to pay its workers a little more so the federal district of Washington D.C. does not have to supplement their income’s.
Article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html
Or if you feel the need to read the entire report
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf
Ethan I also disagree with you saying this is bill of attainder. I do not feel that this bill was passed just to give the finger to Walmart. I say this because of a report published by the House Democrats stating that as a result of Walmart’s low wages the state of Wisconsin has to pay 900,000$ in welfare to Walmart employees (this is just one store). So now put this into perspective, if we at least could come to the conclusion that, some of Walmarts employees are paid so little it is a necessity for them to be on welfare then is the city Council justified in asking Walmart (and other big franchises as Walmart is most likely not the only contributor to this) to pay its workers a little more so the federal district of Washington D.C. does not have to supplement their income’s.
This legislation, in my opinion is not unconstitutional, the supreme court in Nixon v. General Services Administration decided that legislation with the main intention of punishing is unconstitutional, however, legislation enacted without such intentions is constitutional, granted, such legislation can have side effects of punishment, but can not intend to punish. Is the government punishing walmart in this case? In my opinion, they really are not.
Even if whether or not this is constitutional is controversial, I still think it’s reasonable. A lot of big companies like Walmart threaten to destroy fair competition. As we discussed, the US’s economy is mixed and is not COMPLETELY free, it still involves some government regulation. In this case, I feel that the government regulation is for the good of the whole system. It helps prevent the closing of smaller businesses that can’t compete, and helps prevent possible monopolies.
How would Wal-Mart be running a monopoly if it has competitors such as Target, Costco, Smart and Final, etc.? I realize that many large co-operations such as Wal-Mart and Target put small local shops out of business, but this is the way it has been for many years and will continue to be whether or not the Wal-Mart bill passes or not. In my personal opinion large companies run politics; without large companies America would be a failing nation based on its reliance on the relationship between politics and business (or economy).
I do not think this is a huge issue. Walmart has been known to abuse their workers (along with other big chain department stores) and I personally believe it’s about time someone told them to shape up. While this might not be the best way to do it, it certainly would be effective. As long as the law does not say “Walmart” specifically, I think it’s something great that will affect new stores in DC as a whole and empower the workforce. As others have said, this also gives an advantage to smaller businesses who can’t afford to pay their workers as well as Walmart should or could, and have the ability to pay at the legal minimum wage.
I agree that Walmart might not have the best workforce policy, but the topic of hand does not relate, whatsoever, with it’s professional malpractice. Congress is trying to contain the monopoly that is Walmart, and in doing so is violating the basic rights of an entity. The congressmen are practicingarbitrary rule, as this would not be applicable to others.
Clarification: this is the DC council, the “home rule” governing body for the District, and not Congress.
Simply put, I think this is not fair. Why is Walmart getting discriminated?? Once Walmart comes into town business will increase within the town due to the community members buying goods and new jobs will be created. Walmart will also encourage a bit of friendly competition within the town stores, therefore if the store owners can play their cards right, there will not be a monopoly. I think Walmart is doing good for this little sect of America so why punish them? Shouldn’t the council members be excited for the upcoming revenue and not discourage Walmart from even setting up, only to not be able to do good for the town?
The demand for products will not go away, so small businesses will be able to make a profit supplying that demand. Walmart destroys competition within in towns by selling there products for low prices that small businesses cannot compete with. This can be seen in many towns across America where Walmart came in, and as a result almost all local supply stores have went out of business. This law also does not hurt Walmart much, because they are such a gigantic company.
How is this not fair and Walmart is not being discriminated against they pay their works so little a strong minority of them have to supplement their incomes with welfare (http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf). Yes, I agree with you, in that when Walmart comes into town new jobs created (new jobs created at the expense of all the other jobs in addition to coming without benefits). I completely disagree with you that Walmart fosters FRIENDLY COMPETITION, in that, no small business can afford to compete with the low prices of Walmart and therefore what you describe as friendly competition is more of a predator v prey scenario. Any good Walmart could do in D.C. is (a) already being done by the small business there or (b) would be directly balanced to all the harm Walmart does- low wages for workers and destroying small business. I am sure D.C. has plenty of stores that generate plenty of income. Three Walmarts are not worth it at the expense of all small business in D.C.
This was a reply to CatherineLee
Here’s an op-ed on Forbes regarding that report:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2013/05/31/are-wal‐marts-low-wages-a-drag-on-the-economy-new-report-says-yes/2/
The one certain criticism from the op-ed is that the report is a political document. Argue it out from there!
Whether or not this will be a good idea for the local economy, is it the rightful choice of the council to make this decision? Or would it be irresponsible to let the consumers choose between cheap products and protecting small business?
(that was my own comment, not response)
oops lol the OTHER one was my comment. this was my response. my b
Wall-Mart is discriminated because they force businesses to sell there products at unreasonably low costs. Wall-mart underpays there workers, and have to much control over the market in my opinion. Wall-Mart regulates supply and demand and the government is not punishing them they levy taxes to compensate for the negative externality they represent.
Even though this is definitely a bill of attainder, I think it is reasonable. I don’t agree that Wal-Mart is being targeted just to shut down business, but to balance out the market. It gives smaller businesses some profit, and it’s not like the major corporation will go bankrupt just from a lack of one store location. Wal-Mart would probably have had a better chance at setting up stores if they hadn’t proposed three at one time. This bill seems to balance out competition between businesses and also to prevent rising monopolies from dominating the industry.
This law is in no way unconstitutional, it is internal efficacy at work. Many citizens believe it is time that the minimum wage be increased. Small buissnesses also have a belief that they do not want to buy for higher labour costs because they can not afford to make a profit if they pay higher wages. This new law shows that the local leaders are listening to their constituents. This increases the minimum wage of people who work for companies that can afford to spend more on employment. A law similar to this one, in my mind would be a good solution to the national problem of people earning minimum wage while remaining on poverty line and small buissnesses not being able to afford higher labour costs.
But how do you know the DC council did it for the people? How do you know it wasn’t for their own selfish reasons? The article never had a statistic anywhere saying that the people of DC wanted minimum wage increased and I’m pretty sure that all the small business owners were completely against Walmart coming. Even if small businesses would not have to pay the higher minimum wage Walmart will probably close them down in a year or two tops. The small business owners know already that their no competition for such a big franchise as Walmart. But your point does make sense.
I do not know exactly what the thoughts and reasons of the people who make the laws are. I was only writing what I took from the article and situation. A large percentage of citizens of the United States of America want minimum wage to be increased, to keep up with the cost of living, which also keeps rising. What you wrote about buisnesses being crushed by Walmart eventually just shows your strong elitist attitude. Only a pure elitist would say that there is no point in helping small businesses, since they will eventually be forced to close by bigger companies like Walmart. Also Walmart will not be able to force stores to close if they do not open their stores, to take away the customers from smaller businesses. Although thank you saying that my point makes sense.
*for saying
I NEVER said there was no point in helping small businesses and if you saw it in my text above please show me so I can give you some glasses. I said that I’m pretty sure that all the small businesses were against Walmart coming because they knew it would affect their economy and might lead to them being closed. I AM NOT AN ELITE!!! So you can just stuff it :p. But you implied that Walmart or another big name franchise would open its stores when you said that it was internal efficacy because the local leaders “increased the minimum wage of people who work for companies that can afford to spend more on employment”. Oh yeh, and your welcome.
“Even if small businesses would not have to pay the higher minimum wage Walmart will probably close them down in a year or two tops.” – JC
That statement clearly says that small buisnesses will be crushed by large companies like Walmart. Which is an elitist way of thinking about smaller buisnesses. If what I have just said is wrong then I think I need more than glasses to help me.
Again I was stating things I took away from the article and situation. I did not intend for each sentence in my orginal post to relate to each other.
Why would you not want to be an elite person?
First of all I still did not state ANYWHERE in that sentence that we should not HELP small businesses. Also I was just stating facts when I said Walmart would MORE THAN LIKELY close down smaller busineses. Like many of my classmates have stated Walmart knocks out local businesses when it puts the franchises by smaller businesses. And I’m putting so much capital letters because I’m trying to help your seeing problem until you get your glasses. Because I am not an ELITE and I should not be called things I am not. Plus to me elite is offensive not a compliment.
I like how you bring up the point “local leaders are listening to their constituents”, but are they really listening and taking in the concerns and needs of their constituents when the Wards 5 and 7 where the three Wal-Marts were to be built are areas that are considered “food deserts” or “areas where access to grocery stores and fresh food is limited”. So when you say that the local leaders are listening to their constituents, are they really? I would have to say no because if their platform truly was providing the best for their constituents, they would have allowed Wal-Mart to build its three centers because it would have meant (a) a greater supply of fresh food and grocery options and (b) people would have to travel less to reach their nearest grocery store equalling having to spend less money on gasoline, which is expensive. I really doubt the leaders passed this bill in respect to the better being of it’s constituents, but instead passed it in effect to single out Wal-Mart and other large business and trying to establish a big ego.
I got the information about the food scarcity here: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/07/d-c-walmart-pullout-would-leave-residents-with-few-grocery-options-91191.html
Walmart has the reputation of destroying as many jobs as it creates. It is notorious for terminating local businesses and paying its workers low wages. Furthermore, the company does not offer benefits to its workers, making them have to depend on public benefits. Therefore, can the government make walmart pay a minimal of $12.50 to its employees? Well, considering that D.C. has a significantly higher cost of living when compared to other regions of the U.S., yes. Fine, one more problem, walmart can simply move its operations to Maryland and Virginia, that way, the company would not need to pay the minimum of $12.50 and still be able to serve its D.C. customers. Unfortunately, this would mean that the effects on the local small businesses would remain more or less the same.
Now, on the question of constitutionality, SCOTUS concluded in Nixon v. General Services Administration that legislation must not be intended to punish, legislation that is implemented for reasons other than punishment are considered constitutional, however such legislation can have the side effects of punishment. Therefore, is the district of Columbia punishing walmart and other such corporations? I think not.
Walmart at this time is a company that is setting (competition) with small businesses. In this situation is that the government is trying to regulate the problem by not allowing Walmart to take over small local businesses as JC mentioned it? However if the government is trying to set a standard for the company, is it (fair) for the company to face such process?
***This is a reply for JC’s post.***
Btw, do you know about the Walmart bribery scandal in Mexico?
http://business.time.com/2012/04/23/how-big-a-deal-is-wal-marts-mexico-bribery-scandal/
I agree with Timothy. Though this legislation would directly affect Walmart, is it really a punishment to increase the livlihood of already deprived Walmart employees? How can Walmart argue that the DC council is simply passing this law to hurt Walmart rather than to help the employees. Really they can’t and I think that’s why the DC council was in the right. However I doubt the mayor will want to deal with all the flack he will get if he allows this to go through and I’m assuming he will indeed veto the bill. Corporate America wins again.
I think from a business stand point it was smart of them to do it. I don’t know why they don’t want Walmart there but its their choice. Plus why not raise the minimum wage for huge franchises like Walmart its not like they can’t afford it and its only putting more bread in the mouths of family. Also most of us are now legally able to work or soon will be so whats the problem if Walmart has to pay $12.50? All we have to do is go work at Walmart and get paid a higher minimum wage that usual. But I do see how the DC council is being biased towards Walmart but Walmart would knock out some small local businesses that more than likely have been around for years and are now wharfed into the DC economy. I also think that the Mayor is smart for not making any comments yet and kind of staying on the sidelines. Walmart is like a spoiled kid soon as it didn’t get its way and had to abide by some rule it immediately wanted to back out (to pressure the mayor to veto which of course is very smart on their part). So clearly they don’t feel DC is doing them any favors by letting them build their shop there. Clearly they think their doing DC a favor which they may actually be doing. But overall its DC’s choice and its not like Walmart is struggling and if DC doesn’t accept them their business will shut down. So really and truly this is interesting and I can’t wait to see how it will unfold because both sides are playing it smart right now.
This situation is a bill of attainder. Knowing that Walmart has successfully grown into a huge business with huge profits! A great business that is advantageous to many citizens. Tt is certainly humorous that they are “attacking” specifically Walmart with the requirement of high minimum wages and other components. I am pretty sure that Walmart is not the only “big” business that is being or is settled in Washington D.C. Therefore why is the government targeting Walmart? a very convenient store that benefits many low-income families? Has it only been Washington D.C, the state that has done such a requirement for the company?
This bill is secretly trying to target Wal-Mart and the council members are shrouding behind the sympathetic argument (that would most likely be made to justify this bill) that with the enactment of this bill Wal-Mart–and to the council’s defense, other retailers that meet the bill’s criteria–would have to start paying its employees a living wage ($12.50). While many might argue–and I agree with–that paying people a living wage is something that should be pushed for, the manner in which the council members are “establishing” living is obviously a clear Bill of Attainder. The council is singling out Wal-Mart and other big retail companies, imposing this bill, and calling it “fair”, but if D.C. really wanted to be “fair” and try to establish a living wage for every worker, than they would pass a bill that would require every business to start paying its employees a living wage. I know even this idea might be preposterous through the fact that small business would face great calamity by an increase of minimum wage and this is where the slippery slope comes in. While certainty raising the minimum wage to $12.50 at big retail companies would be great for the people and would supply them with a living wage, it is not fair or legally correct to single out a group of succeeding corporations and force upon them and just them a need to pay employees 1.5 times more than the minimum wage at a least successful corporation. I believe that the council members proposed and passed a bill of this fashion in effect to mixed and confounding ideas that Wal-Mart hurt small/local business and affect the overall economy, which could be a natural defense when there we three Wal-Marts ready for construction, but nevertheless their action of passing this bill was politically incorrect.
It would have been convenient for having Wal-Mart around DC for the majority of the people. But obviously, smaller businesses may shut down due to the arrival of Wal-Mart, as was the case with other related topics on dominating business franchises, etc…
I will not dispute that this is, in some sense, a bill attainder. However, I will argue that this bill was a good move and made on behalf of the people. Yes it is singling big retail companies but in the grand scheme I think this could be a successful ploy for lawmakers to prevent big business from destroying small business and is fair, in that, big retail companies pay their works so little (part time workers) that they need to supplement their pay checks with welfare. So asking them to pay a little more so these people do not have to go on welfare is not that ludicrous or discriminatory. This in union with the fact that Walmart successfully destroys small business. As replied to Ethan it does not matter how hard Mike tries or markets if the prices are cheaper at Walmart the consumers are going their. (Mike owns an electric store).
This was supposed to be my comment, not a reply
#supportMike
Alright I have to admit that this bill is obviously targeting Walmart. DC obviously doesn’t want the humongous corporation coming in and basically monopolizing the retail market. And can we blame them. Walmart consistently overtakes the market and puts smaller businesses who can’t compete with their low prices out of order. So though the DC council may be discriminating against Walmart, aren’t they at the same time ensuring the rights of the minority. I think its kind of commendable that they are standing up to as big a giant as Walmart. Its one of the few cases in my opinion where our government picked the rights of the people over the desires of a larger corporation. The DC council was basically saying Walmart couldn’t bully them into allowing them to wreck the local economy without some kind of compensation and my opinion that’s well within their rights.
I completely agree with you. Its almost noble of DC to go against the potential monopolization of retail market and to defend what the minority want. Wal-Mart is simply going to practically take over the other stores such as Target, Macy’s, etc because of their cost efficiency. Target and other stores cant compete with stores that have such low prices. In fact, there have been commercials that clearly show how much cheaper it is to shop at Wal-Mart than it is at any other store.
I will not dispute that this is, in some sense, a bill attainder. However, I will argue that this bill was a good move and made on behalf of the people. Yes it is singling big retail companies but in the grand scheme I think this could be a successful ploy for lawmakers to prevent big business from destroying small business and is fair, in that, big retail companies pay their works so little (part time workers) that they need to supplement their pay checks with welfare. So asking them to pay a little more so these people do not have to go on welfare is not that ludicrous or discriminatory. This in union with the fact that Walmart successfully destroys small business. As replied to Ethan it does not matter how hard Mike tries or markets if the prices are cheaper at Walmart the consumers are going their. (Mike owns an electric store) (Support Mike).
#supportMike
#supportMike
This situation is most defiantly a Bill of Attainder. Wal-Mart is being unfairly discriminated against just because they are a large co-operation. Wal-Mart and other big companies are easy targets for the people because everyone KNOWS that each of those companies is worth millions and millions of dollars, and they can afford to pay their employees a little extra. D.C. is smart in proposing to pass this bill because they will not only be promoting small businesses, but they will also be bringing more money into their local economic system through higher minimum wages. To address the issue of small businesses, we must look at the difference between fairness and justice. If 3 Wall-Marts were to open in D.C., yes that would destroy small businesses, but our economy is supposed to be a fair system. What D.C. wants is not fair it is just. There is a large difference between being fair and being just. If the large companies have to pay higher wages then so should the small companies. Business is business. The want to increase minimum wages for ONLY LARGE COMPANIES is unfair, and therefore, a Bill of Attainder.
I agree that this bill of attainder is more just than fair. Just is more about what is right and best for all businesses within DC. I agree that it is a good idea for small businesses to increase their minimum wages to balance out the market. As I mentioned before, I think the purpose of this bill is more to even out competition within the industry more than to target the Wal-Mart franchise itself. I’m sure that Wal-Mart, as a large company, has good business making good profits and enough money to pay the workers.
I completely agree that this, I don’t see why only Walmart should be called out. D.C. is not being fair. I never thought about it like you, but I would have to agree that not only large companies should increase their minimum wage.
I see this article and company as both Client and as Entrepreneurial Politics. I really appreciate that the bill requires a minimum of 12.50 an hour, but at the end of the day I believe that allowing Wall-Mart to come into DC is a bad move. Wall mart’s play to increase there workers wage is just a scam, they can pay there workers twice that and still generate huge profits. Also, allowing Wall-mart to enter the local economy will without a doubt force small business out. In my home-town they past strict laws to not let chains like this become engrained into the economy and have seemingly endless rhetoric for this and its nice to purchase goods from family stores, not multi national conglomerates.
First off, why is Wal-Mart being targeted just for wanting to expand? It doesn’t make sense for the DC-Council to go against Wal-Mart and have the blame of that minimum of 12.50 dollars an hour requirement for workers that are in retail for bigger corporations. I mean, it might be a way for DC to avoid the negative outcomes from the positive feedback. Wal-Mart offers lower than average prices on almost every item, including electronics, groceries and more. In fact, there are commercials that blatantly show how much cheaper it is to shop at Wal-Mart than other stores such as Ralphs. So it does make sense for DC to target Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart should not be singled out because of how effective they are in controlling their prices. The only thing that would come with more Wal-Mart franchises would be the other stores such as Target, Macy’s, etc, to scramble and figure out a way to adjust their prices so they can compete with Wal-Mart.
This is unconstitutional. The bill may help small business but it is not right for Wal-wart, which is known for selling supplies at a low price, to compete against these small business. Because i have shopped at Wal-mart, only spenting 100$ for at least more items than stuff from the Book Sore here at Stanford and it will ruin business for sure!
I like how the expansion of Wal-mart is, but dislike the fact that one of my best store(Target) may lose its business and may shut down. So as for this act of competing against small businesses and forcing them to shut down and increasing expansion, i say it is a Bill of Attainder.