So now, instead of letting people work for $8.25 per hour with a chance to move up, you get nothing. Good job, DC.
Oh, but they feel good about themselves. They’re “good people” because they support a “living wage”.
Doesn’t matter what actually results from their support - the real goal was accomplished - they feel good about themselves.
How can Liberals go their entire lives so completely clueless about basic economics?
Glad this worked out this way.
Those Walmarts were going to end up screwed, it is good this happened up front and that Walmart got out of them.
Now to decide on where to send them...
As I understand it, it is not “large retailers like Wal-Mart” but in fact tailored so it is ONLY Wal-Mart. There is a Target store already in the District, no? And there is zero mention of them falling under this bill.
And I haven’t heard any grousing from the other minimum wage workers in DC, no “hey, what about us? We want $12.50 too.” Now why might that be? /rhetorical
Good for Wal-Mart! Tell them to stick it.
Why not set the minimum wage at $20? Now, that’s a living wage.
I don’t know of any plans for WalMart in Detroit but they did just open a Meijer on the corner of Woodward and 8 Mile bringing some 400 jobs. (Meijer is a regional store comparable to Walmart)
That tells me that despite Detroit’s problems, economic freedom wins out over economic oppression.
A lot of congressional staff is going to love this law up until the time they get replaced with unpaid interns.
Particularly stupid because with the extreme cost of living in D.C., market forces probably would have eventually forced Walmart to pay something close to $12.50 to get competent help anyway.
If it is not a bill of Attainder, it is awfully close.
If not that, or in addition, it does seem that it violates the 14th amendment.
Walmart has threatened to stop construction on three stores in Washington D.C. and to cancel plans for three more if Washington goes ahead with a dramatic increase in minimum wage to $12.50 an hour. Walmart argues that the bill arbitrarily discriminates against large retailers, and that is at least partly true. The measure under consideration would only apply to stores of at least 75,000 square feet and $1 billion in annual corporate profits. This net catches Walmart, Best Buy, Home Depot, Target and Macy’s, but not Starbucks (enough profits, but under 75,000 square feet) or local supermarkets like Giant Foods (possibly enough space, not enough profits).
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”
“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service A
14th amendment. Excerpt of Section 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
actually, this isn’t an example of the liberals shooting themselves in the foot. they are simply exposing their true colors.
publicly, they scream out that “the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer”. the dirty secret is that the liberals don’t give a damn about poor; but they desperately want to destroy the “rich”.
Maybe they can have the Bakers Union come in and represent them with those non-existent jobs. What’s really sad is the D.C. Council doesn’t care if people work or not because they always have the Federal Government as Nanny to make sure the welfare spigot is never turned off.
In DC, you either are an SEIU Government "employee" (I use the term very loosely), or, you collect Food Stamps, EBT's, Daycare/Childcare/Child subsidies and FREE Medical, Section 8 housing, etc., etc.
We need a civil war to get the country back on the track of personal responsibility, and EARN YOUR OWN WAY.
Who was the wacko who wanted $25 an hour? Was that the imaginary indian Elizabeth Warren? Yeah I think it was her, she wanted $25 an hour minimum wage lol! “Hey why does a Big Mac at McDonalds cost $20 bucks?”
And, the people making $8.25 / hr at other places get to pay government-inflated prices for necessities.
And the real estate hustler pals of the council are circling the commercially developed sites to be divested by wally world. Graft, corruption and maintaining the extreme cost of living DC is known for so that only the few elite and foreign cantonments can be there served by people who are made poor and the dope dealers who prey on them. Nice work DC.
The price advantage of simple day to day things wallmart could have delivered greatly outweighed a “labor” wage issue. This was a cabal of socialist union types and true thugs pushing this. The rainbow coalition.
LOVE this kind of stupidity.
Wally World should open up locations 50 feet outside the DC border. DC gets their box box retailers and the DC city council can go on with this nonsense.
There are few jobs in a big box retailer that are really worth 12-50 an hour. Truth be known, there are few jobs inside a big box retailer that are worth 8-25 an hour. Legislating a “living wage” results in less jobs.
But, as pointed out aptly by others, they feel good about it, so that’s all they really need.
If you have a problem with making 8-25 an hour, don’t apply there. If you have a problem with companies that pay 8-25 an hour, then don’t shop there. Let the free market decide. The DC council will lose every time.
We don't save the US unless economic balance comes back. I'm not saying a person can't be rich and successful, but they can't do it the Walton way. JMHO
it’s kind of like the union worker mentality that no job is better than a job at less than they want to make. You’re out of work, but at least you “won”.
Try writing a check to your mortgage company for a moral victory, idiots.