If I were WalMart I'd run an ad telling why we scrapped 3 stores--for 5 years.
And particularly council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the bill. Orange noted that “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”
Ah yes, councilman, keep telling yourself and your constituents that. And I'll admit you're right, but only to the extent that Democrat policies have relieved people of the burden of actually seeking out and finding jobs which require them to show up and actually "work" [eewww, shudder!] for a living. Your philosophy--if we can glorify playground thinking with that term--endears you to dumb voters but it will eventually destroy everything. Because more and more people will be lured by your offer of "free money," until so few are working that the government will collapse from deficit spending.
But then, you don't think that far ahead. In fact, I suspect you don't think past the next bribe or the next election.
In any case, as it turns out, after the bill was passed WalMart announced it was abandoning plans to open three of the six planned stores and was reviewing its options on the three already under construction. You can read the whole story here.
Let me congratulate WalMart on a great response. But if I was a WalMart exec I'd consider doing a lot more to turn this shocking abuse of political power into a long-lasting lesson for local residents: First I'd stop construction on the other three stores. Then I'd pick a couple of business-friendly newspapers and sign a five year contract for a quarter-page ad to run a few times a week, to read as follows:
Dear District residents: We wanted to open six big new stores in some of the poorest neighborhoods in the district. These stores would have hired 1,800 local residents, with all jobs paying a minimum of $8.25 per hour. However, some opportunistic leftists on the D.C. council, aided by their union supporters, rushed out a bill that would have forced WalMart to pay $12.50 per hour.
This law was worded so that effectively it applied just to WalMart. In fact the law specifically exempted stores whose employees were union members.
It should be obvious that if we're required to pay $12.50 per hour we'd have to lose the low prices that make WalMart so desirable. If we didn't we'd lose money on these stores--and you need to know that businesses can't stay in business if they don't make a profit.
Your representatives on the council obviously would rather you not have 1800 new jobs, and force you to pay more for your purchases. This shows they really don't give a damn about you.
Oh, and they don't know squat about business or economics. Which is why they're politicians.
If you want a whole bunch of jobs and lower prices, you know were to find us. But please be advised that we won't come back as long as even one of the following council members is still on the council: [list those voting for the bill here]