Walmart pulls out of building 2 of the 5 stores in DC

[bozack]

If their employees are so much better off being unemployed then why do they work there in the first place? How exactly are they being exploited if they are being paid a legal wage for legal unskilled labor just like almost every other company that requires unskilled labor?

How do you even procure food if you refuse to do business with anyone that pays their unskilled workers minimum wage? Regardless of where you shop the items you purchase utilized minimum wage workers at some point in their production. Hell your produce probably utilized workers that make less than minimum wage.

I often wonder if its this victim mentality not for the employees but for "the rest of us" since in their mind "we" are paying for walmart to profit by paying unskilled labor minimum wage (perceived as underpayment)

Willing to bet there are plenty of folks out there who would rather all those walmart employees just go on the government dole so they can watch walmart crash and burn.

As for me I'd much rather see these folks out there engaged in the workforce and at least getting some compensation vs simply collecting.

 

[tweaker2]

If their employees are so much better off being unemployed then why do they work there in the first place? How exactly are they being exploited if they are being paid a legal wage for legal unskilled labor just like almost every other company that requires unskilled labor?

How do you even procure food if you refuse to do business with anyone that pays their unskilled workers minimum wage? Regardless of where you shop the items you purchase utilized minimum wage workers at some point in their production. Hell your produce probably utilized workers that make less than minimum wage.

Reference Boomerang's post on why Walmart is stopping development of those stores they were planning in DC. My read on that is Walmart is refusing to pay the anticipated raise in the minimum wage as a reason for pulling out. Meaning, they aren't willing to absorb/pass on the cost that many of the other businesses in the area will. What makes Walmart so different from those other businesses that they refuse to operate where others will? Is it that they can only survive in areas that suppress their entry level wages?

Doesn't make sense to me when Walmart is so huge and profitable that they can't absorb higher labor costs in one area while exploiting and suppressing the wage lines in others.

To rephrase for edification, Walmart's agenda is to enter in areas where they can get rid of their competition by undercutting them and then holding/suppressing the wage lines in the area to their liking. To do this, they have to keep their employee's wages and "benefits" lower than their competition's which will also scare off any other stores from entering their area.

In this sense, the folks who were willing or more likely forced to work for Walmart's suppressive wages and lack of benefits (Walmart gets rid of their competition, remember?) will possibly find employment by those businesses that Walmart would have gotten rid of, or at those businesses that would have started up without Walmart's cut throat methods to contend with. In other words, to a large degree, Walmart isn't creating new jobs, they're simply replacing those jobs they got rid of, only with lower pay and benefits.

I believe the scenario I just mentioned is as plausible as the one you proffered.

As an example, our neighborhood have a choice of Walmart, Target, Kmart and Costco and other smaller shops to choose from. Walmart's pricing is, on the average, the same as all of those other stores, yet their pay and "benefits" are comparatively less. Their turnover is higher as a result, but I guess they're willing to put up with that given how they're able to recruit enough part timers to fill the gaps.

Walmart is able to survive the high cost of living in Hawaii, the higher pay that their competitors offer and the state mandated mandatory benefits that raise their costs yet they refuse to open stores elsewhere where the COL is cheaper?

It seems to me Walmart may be making what they consider to be good business decisions, but I also believe they are making a statement, as lame as it is.

 

[sportage]

Well here's an opportunity for someone out there.
Wal-Mart began as the all American store selling American made goods for a low price.
Then they switched to selling Chinese imports and at a high price.

Sounds like the climate is right for the new Sam Walton to step forward, create a new business by returning to those original Sam Walton values.
He could call it TRUMP-MART.

 

[Darwin333]

Reference Boomerang's post on why Walmart is stopping development of those stores they were planning in DC. My read on that is Walmart is refusing to pay the anticipated raise in the minimum wage as a reason for pulling out. Meaning, they aren't willing to absorb/pass on the cost that many of the other businesses in the area will. What makes Walmart so different from those other businesses that they refuse to operate where others will? Is it that they can only survive in areas that suppress their entry level wages?

Doesn't make sense to me when Walmart is so huge and profitable that they can't absorb higher labor costs in one area while exploiting and suppressing the wage lines in others.

So they should purposefully open stores that they know will lose money? I'm sorry bud but that's not usually how business works.

To rephrase for edification, Walmart's agenda is to enter in areas where they can get rid of their competition by undercutting them and then holding/suppressing the wage lines in the area to their liking. To do this, they have to keep their employee's wages and "benefits" lower than their competition's which will also scare off any other stores from entering their area.

That makes zero business sense. A business is more likely to enter an area with low wages than it is one with high wages. It's business 101, lower wages means they can compete better and be more profitable or they can steal the competitions best labor by offering a higher rate. I'd absolutely love for a company in my line of work to come into town and either bring or train experts in the field at lower pay than I currently offer. They get to pay for the training and give them the expertise and then I can poach their best and brightest with ease.

In this sense, the folks who were willing or more likely forced to work for Walmart's suppressive wages and lack of benefits (Walmart gets rid of their competition, remember?) will possibly find employment by those businesses that Walmart would have gotten rid of, or at those businesses that would have started up without Walmart's cut throat methods to contend with. In other words, to a large degree, Walmart isn't creating new jobs, they're simply replacing those jobs they got rid of, only with lower pay and benefits.

No one is forced to work at Walmart. If their wages are to low then they simply won't get enough people to accept them. I highly doubt that they have mechanics in their auto department making minimum wage because no mechanic would ever work for that. They compete with the McDonald's of the world for unskilled labor.


I believe the scenario I just mentioned is as plausible as the one you proffered.

As an example, our neighborhood have a choice of Walmart, Target, Kmart and Costco and other smaller shops to choose from. Walmart's pricing is, on the average, the same as all of those other stores, yet their pay and "benefits" are comparatively less. Their turnover is higher as a result, but I guess they're willing to put up with that given how they're able to recruit enough part timers to fill the gaps.

Walmart is able to survive the high cost of living in Hawaii, the higher pay that their competitors offer and the state mandated mandatory benefits that raise their costs yet they refuse to open stores elsewhere where the COL is cheaper?

It seems to me Walmart may be making what they consider to be good business decisions, but I also believe they are making a statement, as lame as it is.

Going by Boomerang's post I'd think that it's more of an unknown future of their biggest expense. Things like mandatory hours and such would be a nightmare for a company utilizing lots of part time labor. They currently have no clue what their labor costs will be going forward and that's a bad way to go into a business.

 

[bshole]

I know my life will have reached rock bottom if I ever am reduced to shopping in a shithole like Walmart. It is ok for the little people, but I am simply way too good for it. It is beneath my dignity.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So instead they now completely rely on government assistance....

No, they get a better job from another retailer that doesn't screw everyone else.

Costco for instance.

 

[Atreus21]

On the bright side, there will be that many less underpaid overworked employees that are forced to rely on government assistance programs and free ER hospital visits to survive.

Yeah. Unemployment pays much better.

 

[bozack]

No, they get a better job from another retailer that doesn't screw everyone else.

Costco for instance.

there aren't that many Costcos though

I also can't see anyone else stepping up into this space as the margins aren't that great for a new company.

 

[Darwin333]

No, they get a better job from another retailer that doesn't screw everyone else.

Costco for instance.

If they have that option then why would anyone have worked for those Walmart stores in the first place? I'd never choose to take a job doing the same thing for less wages and less benefits.

I just checked and they have a rather high unemployment rate, much higher than the national average. I wonder if their new laws will spur job growth or hurt it, especially the one mandating how many hours a company must give an employee?

 

[ahmedgoldberg]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/15/wal-mart-kills-plans-build-two-dc-stores/

The two stores planned for the District would have served as the anchor retail for both Capitol Gateway Marketplace and Skyland Town Center.

Ward 7 Council member Yvette Alexander said They signed leases, and now they have broken their deal.


interesting about the legal ramifications if walmart did sign leases.

development around those 2 poor areas were probably started because of those signed leases.

walmart is closing some stores in california too. one of them, the one near the oakland airport i know to be very busy, so i know it couldnt be losing money. apparently the reason for the closures in california are the"living wage" laws in oakland and san jose. walmart is afraid thats gonna catch fire and they want to send a message to the municipalities, which seems weird given that i think walmart just announced recently that they were going to voluntarily raise pay over time. maybe they were just joking

 

[PokerGuy]

No, they get a better job from another retailer that doesn't screw everyone else.

Costco for instance.

Costco? You really think Costco is going to build stores in those areas? Perhaps you should go read up on costco a little more, and take a particularly good look at the demographics around their customers. Further, you might also want to take a peek at the number of employees at a typical costco store versus a walmart store. Hint: it's far less.

 

[waggy]

I worked at walmart. It was a perfect place for me to work at the time.

Considering i was a high school then college student. Walmart didn't bitch about the hours i have available and paid more then fast food places in town. I also got 17-23 hours a week every week.