Wal-Mart Threatens to Pull Out of D.C.
The Washington Post reports Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’.
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.The Problem With "Living Wage" Laws
The company’s hardball tactics come out of a well-worn playbook that involves successfully using Wal-Mart’s leverage in the form of jobs and low-priced goods to fend off legislation and regulation that could cut into its profits and set precedent in other potential markets. In the Wilson Building, elected officials have found their reliable liberal, pro-union political sentiments in conflict with their desire to bring amenities to underserved neighborhoods.
Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) called Wal-Mart’s move “immensely discouraging,” indicating that he may consider vetoing the bill while pondering whether to seek reelection.
Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Wal-Mart U.S., wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the proposed wage requirement “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”
As a result, Barron said, the company “will not pursue” stores at three locations where construction has yet to begin — two in Ward 7 and one in Ward 5. He added that the legislation, if passed, will also jeopardize the three stores underway, pending a review of the “financial and legal implications.”
The bill, known as the Large Retailer Accountability Act, passed the council on an initial 8 to 5 vote last month. The council would need nine votes to override a potential veto from Gray, who lobbied Wal-Mart to open a store at the Skyland Town Center site, near his Hillcrest home.
In the chicken-and-egg game of "living wages", few have figured out it is government policies, not salaries that are the problem.
Here are some easy to understand examples.
- Hundreds of "affordable home" programs drove home prices higher until home prices eventually collapsed (at which time government bodies did everything they could to prop up prices). Conclusion: Government bureaucrats did not really want affordable homes, they just wanted to be on record as being in favor of the idea (while handing out programs in return for votes and campaign donations)
- Student loan programs (and of course education-related public unions) tell a similar story about out-of-control education costs.
- Those wishing that government would do something about health care costs need to consider that government is the primary reason health care costs are absurd.
The Real Problem
The real problem is not low salaries but rather how far money goes. Blame the Fed and government policies for that problem, not Wal-Mart.
Should the law pass, it will of course artificially make small mom-and-pop retail stores more competitive, but for whose benefit?
The net effect will be higher prices for everyone, a net loss of jobs, subsidization of weak uncompetitive companies, and a big round of cheers from union sympathizers who will benefit at the expense of everyone else (with the real problem not remotely addressed).
To top it off, living wage laws (coupled with preposterously low interest rates from the Fed) provide further incentives for companies to look at software and hardware solutions to get rid of marginal workers.
Should this inane law pass, it will backfire immediately.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment