Losers in the unions vs. Wal-Mart game: D.C.'s poor (UPDATE)

[drebo]

This is a ridiculous argument.

Retailers neither make nor destroy wealth, they more resemble a means of delivery.

Creating wealth is done by producing a good or service that has value. While retail is counted as a service, it does not produce in the way other service industries do. For example, a hospital with specific expertise on staff - drawing patients from around the world, their money to employ doctors, rent hotels and cars, etc. flowing into the community. The only time retail makes a community Is if its special to the point of being a tourist attraction. Wal-mart doesn't qualify there.

You're right. Your argument is ridiculous.

You're advocating that people in these poor communities travel outside their community and purchase goods from someone who doesn't live in their community.

Regardless of where the money comes from, it's money that's leaving the community.

No, Walmart isn't going to turn a ghetto into Palm Springs. But 200 $8.50/hr jobs are better than no jobs at all.

And I'm sure it will be benefitting the community as a whole when at least some of the dollars spent on groceries and other miscellaneous crap are returned to the people in that community via their wages.

No one is claiming that a Walmart store will "create wealth." What it will do, though, is bring more wealth and keep more wealth in that community.

 

[shady28]

You're right. Your argument is ridiculous.

You're advocating that people in these poor communities travel outside their community and purchase goods from someone who doesn't live in their community.

....

I never said that and it is not what I advocate, I'll thank you to not put words in my or anyone else's mouth.

Wal-mart would displace other **LOCAL** retailers. Neither they, nor wal-mart, generate wealth was the point.

Since you needed it spelled out, there it is.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I never said that and it is not what I advocate, I'll thank you to not put words in my or anyone else's mouth.

Wal-mart would displace other **LOCAL** retailers. Neither they, nor wal-mart, generate wealth was the point.

Since you needed it spelled out, there it is.

In that area there are few merchants that would compete against WalMart.

They are not moving into a thriving market place and attempting dominance.

With exception of liquor stores, 7/11 and gas stations/markets, there is no competition for WalMart in SE DC.
Competition exist 5-10 miles away in MD.

WalMart is not running people out if businesses there, they are bringing in jobs that do not exist and reducing time/distance that people use too get supplied.

While your concept may be valid elsewhere, for this situation it is not.

 

[JEDI]

hm.. still no veto by DC's mayor?
but he also hasnt signed it yet.

also, chicago tried this in 2006 vs walmart:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...o-city-council-new-stores-planned-supercenter

guess DC didnt do any research when they came up w/this bill

 

[bshole]

they are bringing in jobs that do not exist

Yea right.....

A 2009 U.C. Berkeley study discovered that "Wal-Mart store openings lead to the replacement of better paying jobs with jobs that pay less. Wal-Mart's entry also drives wages down for workers in competing industry segments such as grocery stores." And according to a report released by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May, "...low wages leave Wal-Mart workers unable to afford the necessities of life, [and] taxpayers pick up the tab." One Wal-Mart Supercenter store in Wisconsin "costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year -- about $5,815 per employee," the House report found.

DC is much much much much much better off without Walmart. Let Costco fill in the gap.

 

[spacejamz]

Let Costco fill in the gap.

The poor cannot afford to pay for an ID so they can vote but they will pay the annual $55 membership fee??? LOL

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Yea right.....




DC is much much much much much better off without Walmart. Let Costco fill in the gap.

can the targeted demographic even afford a costco membership?

 

[justoh]

The point is, why should these people have to choose between voting and $1.50 hotdog/soda combo? Because really, who would choose voting, given that choice? It's just the white man trying to keep the brother down. The fact that they're kosher is the ultimate irony.

 

[nehalem256]

The poor cannot afford to pay for an ID so they can vote but they will pay the annual $55 membership fee??? LOL

Actually I think the argument is that they don't have the papers to get a free ID.

Which, considering that said papers are necessary to get employment... I guess maybe no jobs are being lost after all

 

[PokerGuy]

Yea right.....

DC is much much much much much better off without Walmart. Let Costco fill in the gap.

LOL. You and the other terminally stupid people think that Costco would even consider going there. Newsflash: those areas have existed for a LONG time. The fact that there are no major retailers or employers there shows that they are simply not interested. If they were, they'd be there. Walmart is not supplanting existing jobs and businesses, it adding local jobs where there are precious few right now.

Looks like the mayor is just a tad less of a moron than the city council, he'll probably veto this idiocy. If not, it will just hurt the people there.

 

[HumblePie]

Let's see...

Area of a city plagued with crime and high poverty rates? Check
No major retailers or even smaller retailers even wanting to open anything there? Check.

Area keeps getting worse on a vicious cycle because high poverty rates and crime make the area less attractive for any business. Because no businesses want to go into the area then the crime and poverty rates continue to soar? Check.


Walmart seeks to extend the hand to fix the area by leading the charge in opening up stores at a risk and idiots bash Walmart for it? Check.

Just fail from those bashing Walmart on this issue here. I don't think Walmart is all that great, it certainly isn't, but what they were doing in DC was actually COMMENDABLE. What the politicians are doing in that area is anything but commendable.

 

[EagleKeeper]

they are bringing in jobs that do not exist

Yea right.....

A 2009 U.C. Berkeley study discovered that "Wal-Mart store openings lead to the replacement of better paying jobs with jobs that pay less. Wal-Mart's entry also drives wages down for workers in competing industry segments such as grocery stores." And according to a report released by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May, "...low wages leave Wal-Mart workers unable to afford the necessities of life, [and] taxpayers pick up the tab." One Wal-Mart Supercenter store in Wisconsin "costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year -- about $5,815 per employee," the House report found.

DC is much much much much much better off without Walmart. Let Costco fill in the gap..

Do you have any idea of the area of the city that they are talking about?

Been there?
Looked at the economics of the area?
Looked at at the businesses that exists there?

See my post above of a couple of days.

 

[spacejamz]

Do you have any idea of the area of the city that they are talking about?

Been there?
Looked at the economics of the area?
Looked at at the businesses that exists there?

See my post above of a couple of days.

It is obvious by his Costco comment that he has no clue of what he is talking about....

 

[berzerker60]

Seriously? Walmart "seeks to extent the hand to fix the area"? What a benevolent, kind soul Walmart is!

Walmart wants in because there are a ton of customers they can sell products too. Stop acting like this is charity. They stand to gain something, the area stands to gain something. It's a negotiation, not a gift.

 

[nextJin]

Do you have any idea of the area of the city that they are talking about?

Been there?
Looked at the economics of the area?
Looked at at the businesses that exists there?

See my post above of a couple of days.

Of course he hasn't.

 

[spacejamz]

Seriously? Walmart "seeks to extent the hand to fix the area"? What a benevolent, kind soul Walmart is!

Walmart wants in because there are a ton of customers they can sell products too. Stop acting like this is charity. They stand to gain something, the area stands to gain something. It's a negotiation, not a gift.

Then why are not other big box retailers scrambling to set up stores in that area???

 

[berzerker60]

Then why are not other big box retailers scrambling to set up stores in that area???

Any number of reasons. The market isn't perfect because information isn't free. Other stores might have plenty of other places to invest first before they get into DC just because they've already done due diligence there; other places might not have the market saturation that Walmart has such that Walmart only has a few places left they can build new stores, and DC is a huge untapped market even with inconveniences; other stores might very well be intending to build there and we haven't heard; other stores might be intending to wait 5-10 years for the area to gentrify more or new public transit systems negotiations to finish; etc etc etc.

You seriously think Walmart builds stores in major cities out of the good of their heart, rather than because they can make a buck? This is Walmart, not Goodwill. They provide a service and make money off of it. They build stores because they believe they'll make a profit. This one is no exception. They already agreed to a bunch of conditions in order to be allowed to build stores in DC, and now they're balking at an additional condition. That's perfectly normal in a negotiation. Both sides are allowed to request things, and both sides are allowed to say no. There's no real morality to this.

 

[poofyhairguy]

DC is much much much much much better off without Walmart. Let Costco fill in the gap.

Um. Costco and Walmart are not direct competitors. MAYBE Sams and Costco, but even then Costco's target customer is a little higher up the socioeconomic ladder.

What WILL be built be where a Wal-Mart would be is liquor stores and pawn shops- aka businesses that cater to that socioeconomic class.

 

[drebo]

Seriously? Walmart "seeks to extent the hand to fix the area"? What a benevolent, kind soul Walmart is!

Walmart wants in because there are a ton of customers they can sell products too. Stop acting like this is charity. They stand to gain something, the area stands to gain something. It's a negotiation, not a gift.

Walmart's a business. They exist to make money.

In this particular case, a side effect of Walmart making money is that 1000+ people who currently don't have jobs will now have jobs.

Isn't that a win for everyone involved?

 

[spacejamz]

Any number of reasons.

The biggest reason is probably the demographics of the area (average household salary, crime rate, etc)...

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Seriously? Walmart "seeks to extent the hand to fix the area"? What a benevolent, kind soul Walmart is!

Walmart wants in because there are a ton of customers they can sell products too. Stop acting like this is charity. They stand to gain something, the area stands to gain something. It's a negotiation, not a gift.

Your post is full of false indignation. There is nothing wrong with the reasons behind Wal-mart wanting to setup shop in these neighborhoods. They see a business opportunity and they are willing to seize it much like any other business that is a for profit business.

Hence when someone sells you a cup of coffee at a coffee shop they don't do so because they are being charitable. No, they do so because they see something of value in offering a cup of coffee to you at a certain price level to more so than holding onto all the coffee they've purchased in their stock room.

Equally when you see something of value in buying a cup of coffee at a certain price level when it comes to determining whether or not money your pocket has more value or not being there or satisfying your desire or need (e.g. if you are really sleepy and tired and trying to stay awake and be peppy for a job interview) for that cup of coffee. Thus the value of your money in your mind is worth less than the value of the cup of a coffee at certain price level depending on your desires and needs and vice versa with the coffee shop exchanging coffee for cash.

All of this is the basics fundamental principle behind capitalism, i.e. where people exchange currency for goods and services which they perceive to have a higher value to them than person who is selling those goods and services and vice versa for those selling the coffee.

So yes, Wal-mart sees something of value in being able to set up shop in a neighborhood that no other competitor is willing to service. Additionally they have the prior experience of setting and servicing communities that companies like Costco will not serve or set up in at all because the income demographics are not there for CostCo's business model to thrive in those areas. In the end your false indignation might as well be due to Wal-mart setting up in that area rather than Nordstrom or Saks, etc.

 

[waggy]

You seriously think Walmart builds stores in major cities out of the good of their heart, rather than because they can make a buck? This is Walmart, not Goodwill. They provide a service and make money off of it. They build stores because they believe they'll make a profit.

/this..is fucking retarded.

DUH they are a business. nearly EVERY fucking store is out to make a buck. they all provide service in order to make a profit. DUH!

in exchange for the ability to have a store in that area they PUT people in taht area in JOBS.



good god have fucking people gone insane?

 

[palehorse]

good god have fucking people gone insane?

The people you're dealing with, or attempting to reason with, are simply anti-capitalist. They're ignorant, and stupid... and, sadly, they're everywhere.

Like driving a car, you just have to be aware of your surroundings so that you can do your best to avoid colliding with any of them. No matter how good you are, though, one of the idiots is still going to rear-end you one of these days...

 

[berzerker60]

Walmart's a business. They exist to make money.

In this particular case, a side effect of Walmart making money is that 1000+ people who currently don't have jobs will now have jobs.

Isn't that a win for everyone involved?

Yes, absolutely. Even more of a win is if those 1,000+ people can feed their families with those jobs (assuming full-time employment). If that's not possible, okay - possibly Walmart will win that point in the negotiation and either Gray vetoes or the DC Council rescinds the law next year. I don't have any problem with Walmart saying no to the living wage requirement, I don't have any problem with the DC council asking for the living wage requirement. It's a business deal, nobody is being wicked and evil for requesting that it be sweeter in their favor. The other side is free to say no. Of course they want a better deal, everyone does. We'll see which side wins.

The biggest reason is probably the demographics of the area (average household salary, crime rate, etc)...

Yep. So? Walmart sells cheap goods at low margins, it's a great business model that works well in poor areas too. That's why they stand to make such a killing in DC. That's why they want in, which in turn is why the DC Council sees themselves as being in a strong bargaining position.

If I come up to your yard sale and say "Oh man, I've been looking for exactly this table for years and years, I'd give anything to own it! How much are you asking for it?" I'm not being evil to ask a bunch of money. You're free to say no and walk away, which is also perfectly fine. At that point I might or might not offer something lower. We'd both be better off if the deal went through, but that doesn't mean one of us is acting poorly to take a strong position either way, and that's true even if the deal ends up not going through. There will be more opportunities in the future.

Your post is full of false indignation. There is nothing wrong with the reasons behind Wal-mart wanting to setup shop in these neighborhoods. They see a business opportunity and they are willing to seize it much like any other business that is a for profit business.
...
So yes, Wal-mart sees something of value in being able to set up shop in a neighborhood that no other competitor is willing to service. Additionally they have the prior experience of setting and servicing communities that companies like Costco will not serve or set up in at all because the income demographics are not there for CostCo's business model to thrive in those areas. In the end your false indignation might as well be due to Wal-mart setting up in that area rather than Nordstrom or Saks, etc.

The heck are you talking about? Of course there's nothing wrong with them wanting to set up there. It's just not a good deed when they do so, and people should stop asking like they're doing DC a favor by building a store to make money they. I think we're basically saying the exact same thing, but somehow you think I'm saying the opposite? What false indignation are you talking about? I wasn't the one who suggested a CostCo instead. I'm the person who thinks it's stupid to talk about Walmart building a store like it's some generous gift of jobs to the poor rather than a mutually beneficial business deal that the DC Council and Walmart each want to maximize for themselves.

/this..is fucking retarded.

DUH they are a business. nearly EVERY fucking store is out to make a buck. they all provide service in order to make a profit. DUH!

in exchange for the ability to have a store in that area they PUT people in taht area in JOBS.



good god have fucking people gone insane?

What the hell people? I'm literally just saying we shouldn't act like Walmart is doing anyone any favors by creating the jobs, they're acting in their self interest just like everyone else is. I'm saying don't condemn the City Council for taking a hard bargaining line when they're in a strong bargaining position until we've seen how it all plays out. Both sides stand to gain, and I hope they get a deal. I'm not attacking Walmart, I'm not attacking the City Council. But there are several posts (I can find them if you want) that seem to think the City Council is spitting in poor generous Walmart's face as they 'reach out and try to fix the community' as if it's volunteer work. Neither side has the moral high ground because, as I've already said multiple times, this is not a moral issue. It's a business deal. Neither side is 'good' or 'evil' here.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, absolutely. Even more of a win is if those 1,000+ people can feed their families with those jobs (assuming full-time employment). If that's not possible, okay - possibly Walmart will win that point in the negotiation and either Gray vetoes or the DC Council rescinds the law next year. I don't have any problem with Walmart saying no to the living wage requirement, I don't have any problem with the DC council asking for the living wage requirement. It's a business deal, nobody is being wicked and evil for requesting that it be sweeter in their favor. The other side is free to say no. Of course they want a better deal, everyone does. We'll see which side wins.


Yep. So? Walmart sells cheap goods at low margins, it's a great business model that works well in poor areas too. That's why they stand to make such a killing in DC. That's why they want in, which in turn is why the DC Council sees themselves as being in a strong bargaining position.

If I come up to your yard sale and say "Oh man, I've been looking for exactly this table for years and years, I'd give anything to own it! How much are you asking for it?" I'm not being evil to ask a bunch of money. You're free to say no and walk away, which is also perfectly fine. At that point I might or might not offer something lower. We'd both be better off if the deal went through, but that doesn't mean one of us is acting poorly to take a strong position either way, and that's true even if the deal ends up not going through. There will be more opportunities in the future.


The heck are you talking about? Of course there's nothing wrong with them wanting to set up there. It's just not a good deed when they do so, and people should stop asking like they're doing DC a favor by building a store to make money they. I think we're basically saying the exact same thing, but somehow you think I'm saying the opposite? What false indignation are you talking about? I wasn't the one who suggested a CostCo instead. I'm the person who thinks it's stupid to talk about Walmart building a store like it's some generous gift of jobs to the poor rather than a mutually beneficial business deal that the DC Council and Walmart each want to maximize for themselves.


What the hell people? I'm literally just saying we shouldn't act like Walmart is doing anyone any favors by creating the jobs, they're acting in their self interest just like everyone else is. I'm saying don't condemn the City Council for taking a hard bargaining line when they're in a strong bargaining position until we've seen how it all plays out. Both sides stand to gain, and I hope they get a deal. I'm not attacking Walmart, I'm not attacking the City Council. But there are several posts (I can find them if you want) that seem to think the City Council is spitting in poor generous Walmart's face as they 'reach out and try to fix the community' as if it's volunteer work. Neither side has the moral high ground because, as I've already said multiple times, this is not a moral issue. It's a business deal. Neither side is 'good' or 'evil' here.

"The people you're dealing with, or attempting to reason with, are simply anti-[reading comprehension]. They're ignorant, and stupid... and, sadly, they're everywhere."



Go easy on them. Following a thread is hard, working hard, reading is hard. They couldn't see HumblePie heaping praise on Wal-Mart for their "commendable" act of charity. He's on their side, after all. All they could see was you making plain, normally uncontroversial statements about how businesses work, and they were OUTRAGED! You are obviously an anti-capitalist fool, because, you know, libtard or something.

Just laugh at their knee-jerk outrage and move along.