74°Scattered Clouds

Home > General Discussion > Hey Walmart – If DC doesn't want you, we'll take you!

Hey Walmart – If DC doesn't want you, we'll take you!
  • Dezlboy July 11, 2013 - 4:04 pm #79739 Reply

    @C_O: OMG!  NS is a social media expert! I see him in a whole new light now. It’s the NS I never knew.

    Village Genius July 11, 2013 - 4:33 pm #79757 Reply

    The clown is not a practicing attorney, although he falsely posts that he is on his linkedin profile.   The nonsensical legal rants demonstrate that he never moved on professionally after law school and likely did quite poorly in law school because he cannot grasp ideas.   Academically weak first year law students sometimes make similar ranting arguments, but most grown up.

    Bluemontsince1961 July 12, 2013 - 6:52 am #79821 Reply

    The only thing N.S. is an expert on is acting out like a constipated stuka.

    Lauren July 14, 2013 - 1:15 pm #80019 Reply

    nooooo to Walmart and definitely  not in Shirlington.  If Arlington wants one, they can have it in Northern Arlington.

    Anonymous July 15, 2013 - 10:45 am #80061 Reply

    “do they people here who demand walmart pay more, pay as much to their illegal alien housekeepers as they would pay to a person legally present in the country? I'll ignore that you can't "lower"yourselves to actually clean yourselves. I k now how important you think you are. But is it fair to people less for the same work only becaucse you are hiring illegal aliens?”

    No, you don’t know “how important you think I am” or who I hire to do what.

    I don’t hire anyone to clean my house, illegal or not.

    Yet another factless and pointless distraction from NS.

    John Fontain September 16, 2013 - 10:46 am #86842 Reply

    Here is an article from the Washington Post which does a good job explaining why Wal-Mart stores do more good for poor people than any harm they supposedly do by paying their employees market-based wages…

    “With Wal-Mart veto, D.C. mayor puts city's poor ahead of rally cry for working poor”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/with-wal-mart-veto-dc-mayor-puts-citys-poor-ahead-of-rally-cry-for-working-poor/2013/09/14/096a646e-1c81-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html

    Here are a couple of excerpts:

    “…since a heart attack last year pushed [Jimmy Pegues] …into retirement and onto Social Security, biweekly trips for $4 generic prescriptions have become a lifeline to make ends meet.”

    "I come to Wal-Mart -- religiously," said Pegues, 64, who saves $110 a month over pharmacies in the District. "For me, at this point, and at this time in my life, the price is the most important thing."

    “Gray's decision brought focus to the flipside of the living-wage debate: that Wal-Mart's customers are often as economically disadvantaged as those who scrape by on its hourly wages.”

    Anonymous September 16, 2013 - 11:05 am #86845 Reply

    John, did it occur to you that low wages could be the reason this guy can’t afford more expensive medication in the first place?

    For the bottom 90% of incomes, real wages (wages counting inflation) haven’t grown for three decades. That’s astounding.

    John Fontain September 16, 2013 - 11:52 am #86854 Reply

    sansabelt – The article says that a heart attack forced Mr. Pegues to retire, presumably early, from a career as a car salesman.  So no, it wouldn’t have occurred to me that a low wage job is the reason he “can’t afford more expensive medication.”

    But your reference to “affording more expensive medication” is curious to me.  Specifically, even if Mr. Pegues could afford to pay more for the exact same medicine that he buys from Wal-Mart, why on earth would he want to pay more for something than he needs to?  Seems counter-intuitive to me.  Do you voluntarily pay more to your cable company or cell phone provider than you need to?

    Dezlboy September 16, 2013 - 12:11 pm #86868 Reply

    I’m on the fence. I understand the low prices for low income people argument. But also find this argument has validity. From Post article, “…Wal-Mart's low wages have helped perpetuate an economy where people depend on the store's inexpensive goods.” 

    And, Walmart employees need to depend on foodstamps and social services due to low wages, and thus the taxpayer ends up supporting employees and Walmart’s low wages. It’s a win-win for Walmart. The save money on wages, and make money from sales, that are paid for by taxpayers.

    In my perfect word, everyone makes a living wage, and everyone has free medical care. Problem solved.  :-)

     

    Anonymous September 16, 2013 - 1:54 pm #86902 Reply

    “But your reference to "affording more expensive medication" is curious to me.  Specifically, even if Mr. Pegues could afford to pay more for the exact same medicine that he buys from Wal-Mart, why on earth would he want to pay more for something than he needs to?  Seems counter-intuitive to me.  Do you voluntarily pay more to your cable company or cell phone provider than you need to?”

    This isn’t about paying more than one “needs” to – of course  nobody does that. It’s about why one needs to pay a certain amount, and feels they can’t pay more, even if they need to.

    Wages are low, John. They haven’t gone up for most working people in 30 years. If our overall economy were healthy, we’d be affording medication and all the other stuff they sell at WalMart by making more money rather than just keeping prices rock-bottom.

    Quoth the Raven September 16, 2013 - 2:03 pm #86903 Reply

    OK, so if wages are low, are you saying that the answer is for Wal Mart to pay more than the law requires them to pay?  If wages are low, then the answer lies in Congress raising the minimum wage, not forcing certain companies (but not others) to pay their workers more.

    novasteve September 16, 2013 - 2:16 pm #86910 Reply

    Should parents who get baby sitters be required to pay special minimum wages, let alone the minimum wage? you either believe in equality or you do not. Treating walmart differently than other countries, if you support this, means you don’t believe in equal treatment under the law. Ifyou don’t believe in it, you don’t have the right to accuse others of discriminating when you support discrimination.

    halj September 16, 2013 - 2:20 pm #86912 Reply

    n*******e, I would imagine most babysitters do not pay taxes (much like you have admitted you do not pay consumer use tax).  Probably works out fine for sitters even without being paid Walmart rates.

    Captain_Obvious September 16, 2013 - 2:27 pm #86913 Reply

    only a troll could compare babysitters with walmart.

    wimmer201 September 16, 2013 - 2:39 pm #86922 Reply

    That self-imposed exile was  far too short.  We didn’t even get the going away party planned yet…..

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list