Not sure why [other than the mind works in mysterious ways] but the old "I've fallen and can't get up" commercial immediately popped into my mind while reading this ~ ~ Sooz

Doocy: Forcing Walmart to pay living wage could be ‘the death of free enterprise’
By David Edwards
Friday, July 12, 2013 10:23 EDT

Fox News host Steve Doocy suggested on Friday that it could be “the death of free enterprise as we know it” if a bill requiring Walmart to pay a living wage was approved by the mayor of Washington, D.C.

In a Washington Post op-ed earlier this week, Walmart regional general manager Alex Barron said that the company would abandon its plans to open three stores if Mayor Vince Gray signed the Large Retailer Accountability Act, which the city coucil passed by a 8-5 vote on Wednesday.

The bill would require employers grossing more than $1 billion a year to pay workers at least $12.50 per hour instead of the $8.25 minimum wage.

“Is this the death of free enterprise as we know it?” Doocy asked Kevin Hasset of the American Enterprise Institute on Friday.

“There are parts of D.C. where you can have about the worst retail experience in America,” Hasset replied. “And those places tend to be kind of local monopoly supermarkets that have heavily unionized workforces, and the unions give all their money to Democratic politicians. And what’s going on is the Democrats are trying to drive up the cost of the competitors.”

Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute, however, pointed out that Walmart could be exempted from the living wage requirement if the company allowed collective bargaining.

“Walmart has a wonderful history of bringing in economic development to communities,” Dorsey explained. “But it also has a very clear history of bringing other consequences to communities: sprawl, traffic impacts, water impacts, other environmental impacts.”

“Lower prices,” Doocy interrupted.

“The one that D.C. cannot stand is to have Walmart come and completely distort the labor market and at the same time require taxpayers to support its low-wage employees, and, in effect, provide a subsidy to a very profitable company,” Dorsey added. “That’s something D.C. doesn’t need, nor should it require.”

Watch this video from Fox News’ Fox & Friends, broadcast July 12, 2013. [Sooz says video accessible via the end link]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/12/doocy-forcing-walmart-to-pay-living-wage-could-be-the-death-of-free-enterprise/

Here is some of what I posted about this story elsewhere;


I understand the arguments against government setting wages, but something has to be done.

Consider what is happening here. Wal-Mart is fighting against paying employees $12.50/hour. That's only about $25,000 per year. That's still not even a living wage for one adult with a child.

And what happens when someone isn't earning a living wage? They turn to government assistance. That means tax dollars are used to help them.

So while the owners of Wal-Mart have become some of the wealthiest people in the world, they keep their employees on low wages. And rather than those employees being able to contribute more in tax dollars to their community, they rely on the community for assistance. Instead of those employees investing back into the economy by purchasing goods and services, they don't have the finances to do that.

You can't have a strong economy when too many people are not making a living wage. It's that simple. You can't have a strong country when too many citizens are the working poor.

And what happens when someone isn't earning a living wage? They turn to government assistance. That means tax dollars are used to help them.

That's the corporatist agenda: privatising public monies for corporate benefit.

Here is my take on Walmart et al. In the past, no one worked at those places to "make a living wage" unless they were management, but did so to suppliment a full time job and/or a spouses income. That is why their model of pay scale is what it is. That is one reason why they can sell items at lower prices.

FW Woolworth's did the same thing, following that with their Woolco stores, similar to Walmart. SS Kresge morphed into Kmart. Here's a little hint on what Kresge paid. He didn't get that rich by paying high wages:

In 1912, he incorporated the S.S. Kresge Corporation with 85 stores. The company was first listed on the New York Stock Exchange on May 23, 1918. During World War I, Kresge experimented with raising the limit on prices in his stores to $1.

By 1924, Kresge was worth approximately $375,000,000 (in 1924 dollars; around $5,000,000,000 in 2009 dollars[1]) and owned real estate of the approximate value of $100,000,000 (see Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner, 160 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1947)). He was married and divorced at least twice by 1928.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._S._Kresge

Both Woolworth's and Kresge's imported from China, although I can't find any written confirmation. I do, however, remember buying 10cent toys at both stores as a child that had "made in china" on them. It fascinated me that they came from so far away. Paper fans, tiny tea sets and such.

For a long, long time their employees were made up mostly of teens or housewives who wanted part time income. You never heard of anyone who wanted a "career" or "living wage" at one of those places. There was no medical insurance or other benefits.

I'm sure the CEOs could take a pay/bonus cut to pay better wages, but that is true of any large corporation. I'm tired of Walmart being the whipping post for practices that have been around for years and years. It's only with the disappearing job market that it has become an issue. When well paid employees of plants and factories have lost their jobs and have sought work at places like Walmart. Suddenly the public is looking to traditionally low paying industries to fill the gap for the jobs that have been outsourced.

Again, we who enjoy a comfortably prosperous life owe thanks to people who are willing (or forced) to live in poverty.

Yes. Forced by a government unwilling to do what was necessary to save the factory jobs that went overseas and the greed of corporations who saw the bottom line for outsourcing jobs. By the greed of the (former) middle class to have every new toy invented, but wanted them as cheaply as possible. NOT BY WALMART et al.

roseanne wrote:

grampatom wrote:

Again, we who enjoy a comfortably prosperous life owe thanks to people who are willing (or forced) to live in poverty.

Yes. Forced by a government unwilling to do what was necessary to save the factory jobs that went overseas and the greed of corporations who saw the bottom line for outsourcing jobs. By the greed of the (former) middle class to have every new toy invented, but wanted them as cheaply as possible. NOT BY WALMART et al.

The choice for the factory jobs in many cases was either go overseas or just disappear. Even the American market isn't big enough to absorb the high cost productivity of American industry. For example, 20 Americans can afford to buy a $20,000 car with parts made overseas but only 15 can afford the same car at $30,000 and nobody outside the U.S. is prepared to pay $30,000 for a car just because it is built by Americans when they can buy the same car for $20,000 made somewhere else.

As for the opening post, WalMart claims the law is directed only at them. That is both true and untrue. Other big box companies, who are already established, have two years to catch-up. Further, for the most part, they are already paying close to or more than the $12.85. Even Best Buy's starting rate is $11.13 while Cosco has always paid well and provides benefits.

I remain conflicted about Walmart ~ it does a lot of good work in and for communities where it has stores, supports local schools and school teams, and employs some who would likely otherwise be unemployable ~ on the other hand, its employee policies [including uber low pay, lack of benefits, and refusal to allow collective bargaining] is deplorable ~

roseanne, I get and generally agree with your take on "... the greed of the (former) middle class to have every new toy invented, but wanted them as cheaply as possible" ~ but I do see Walmart and others playing a role by feeding both into and off of that greed ~ someone will always be willing to fill a market demand or need ~

I read somewhere recently that Costco's average pay rate for its "associates" [aka sales team] is about $21/hour ~ and offers a full range of benefits ~ I've also read somewhere recently that Walmart's stock has taken a deep dive while Costco's is steadily and measurably improving ~ and that Walmart is one of only a very few purchasers that refuse to support worker safety regulations in Bangladesh [which is where a huge proportion of its clothing lines are made and just had a catastrophic factory fire that killed hundreds of workers] ~

FTR, I think a better comparison than Walmart/Costco is Sam's/Costco [both of which charge a membership fee] ~ I don't know if Sam's follows the same awful employee policies of Walmart ~

Sooz

Although I don't know all the in's and out's of retail business, I know this: The problems are a lot more complicated than what Walmart does (or doesn't do). That's where I get angry at the current "Walmart is evil" crap. It isn't only them. The answers do not lie in a wage increase or benefits for just the Walmart employees. They and their wages are part of a much larger job market failure that can't be solved so simply.

True, it isn't just Wal-Mart, but they have been a big player - perhaps the biggest - in all this. They have done much to help outsource jobs by demanding that manufacturers reduce their prices.

By the way, check this list; http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

You will see 4 Wal-Mart owners as 6th,7th,8th & 9th richest in America with over $26 billion each.