Besides low wage jobs, what will SF get from two new stores?

I bet the SF Chamber is following this closely.

The D.C. city council recently approved a law that calls for Walmart to pay what they call a living wage or $12.50 an hour, $4.50 more than the city’s $8.25 required minimum wage.

City councilman Vincent Orange says Walmart’s balance sheet can surely absorb the difference.

“Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. I know he’s not going to come to work for $8.25 per hour.”

Thirty years ago when Citibank wanted to move to SF, they intended to pay wages similar to what they paid on the East Coast.  The SF Chamber nixed the idea. All these years later, we continue to see the results of that decision.

Furthermore, how will two new stores benefit the citizens of SF? WE, have to pay for the infrastructure for the new development (water, sewer, roads) Of course, we would have to do that no matter what was built there. Yes, WM will collect sales tax revenue for the city and state, but won’t they just be stealing business away from other retailers? So it is just a tax collection shift. Then there is the low wages. Who needs an employer like this? I know the SON group says they are not opposed to WM, just the size of the store and the 24/7 retail hours, but I can honestly say, this SF resident is opposed to WM.



#1 Karma on 07.23.13 at 2:07 pm

Also – after the story that ran last week regarding stores and restaurants having a hard time finding employees, where in the world do they think they can supply enough workers for two new WMs? We have something like 3.9% unemployment. Statistics say that at least 2% of that is either unable or does not have a desire to work, so that leaves us with 1.9%. Folks – that is not a workforce make.

#2 LJL on 07.23.13 at 3:21 pm

Your not telling the whole truth. DC did not tell other retail business’s what to pay….. This is about UNIONS. All the other businesses in DC are UNION staffed and Walmart said no. I have never been a Walmart fan but this DC rule is bullshit. know the facts.

#3 Detroit Lewis on 07.23.13 at 3:54 pm

You can be an anti-union person, that is fine. But the story is true, the city council told they have to pay or go home. No BS.

#4 anonymous on 07.23.13 at 4:18 pm


You need to watch

Walmart battling D.C. city council over new store opening


#5 Detroit Lewis on 07.23.13 at 4:19 pm

in other words click on my link above.

#6 rufusx on 07.23.13 at 4:44 pm

cbs ain’t murdochery enough for the likes o’ LJL. It’s all liberal media elitist lies – lies I tell ya.

#7 LJL on 07.23.13 at 9:01 pm

Already seen the CBS report. They didn’t tell you the entire story.

From CNN:
Losers in the unions vs. Wal-Mart game: D.C.’s poor

From :
A special minimum wage that applies to retail workers but not janitors or restaurant workers and to Wal-Mart but not the Gap doesn’t make a ton of sense.

That post was almost an entire thought Ruf. Nice to see you back on your meds.

#8 Sy on 07.23.13 at 10:55 pm

DC proper’s economy is also still in shambles, as it’s run very much like Detroit. So not only do they miss out on the jobs & tax revenue associated with construction and ongoing operations, but also the “Wal-Mart effect” which is deflationary in nature and who’s primary beneficiary is the working poor & middle class.

You get what you vote for.

#9 Testor15 on 07.24.13 at 7:35 am

Maybe WM will team up with McDonalds to teach those pesky poor people how to manage a life and savings account:

Please take note, before you get your McDonalds job, they expect you to have a second job, pay $20 per month for healthcare and other juicy bits.

#10 Testor15 on 07.24.13 at 7:38 am

Forgot to add Stephen Colbert’s view of it:—mcdonald-s-spending-journal

#11 OleSlewFoot on 07.24.13 at 9:12 am

Why does Sioux Falls need 5 McDonalds?

#12 MJL on 07.24.13 at 10:00 am

The thing with the Walmart in the South Side is that they have business model for stores that are only grocery stores. When I was down in Alabama several years ago, Walmart had replaced all of the Piggly Wigglies that went out of business with a smaller 7-10 grocery store. It sounds like that is what the residents on the south side want.

#13 rufusx on 07.24.13 at 10:46 am

DC’s economy is shambles – as it’s run almost entirely by congress.

#14 rufusx on 07.24.13 at 10:51 am

MJL – are the neighbors to the south side site the property owners? Why do they get to dictate to the property owner what they can/can’t build? Do your neighbors get to decide what you do with your property?

testor has some experience with those kind of neighbors, ask him how much “respect” he has for their rights in that regard.

#15 Detroit Lewis on 07.24.13 at 11:04 am

Nice try ruf, but we all know there is a difference between someone building a home next to your home and a WM.

#16 anonymous on 07.24.13 at 6:20 pm

Dana Palmer is an articulate spokesperson for SON.

She and Patrick Lalley had an interesting discussion on 100 Eyes today.

Patrick has invited her to come back to continue the conversation.

#17 Sy on 07.24.13 at 10:48 pm

Ruf, when was Marion Barry ever in Congress?

Some perspective, if we had the same ratio of citizens per City employee Sioux Falls would have 6200 employed.

#18 rufusx on 07.25.13 at 9:27 am

Oh, so now there are to be different “classes” of property ownership – who each get to live by different rules – some get legal preference? Go read the 14th amendment.

#19 rufusx on 07.25.13 at 9:31 am

Sy – “As the federal capital, the constitution grants the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in “all cases whatsoever.” At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has allowed certain powers of government to be carried out by locally elected officials. However, Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and exercises greater oversight of the city than exists for any U.S. state. Furthermore, the District’s elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.”

#20 rufusx on 07.25.13 at 9:35 am

As currently structured – it is Darrel Issa’s (Government Oversight etc…. Committee – the Benghazi and IRS “scandal” inquisitors) that controls DC.

#21 rufusx on 07.25.13 at 9:38 am

They are also the committee that has been doing its best to bankrupt the USPS.

#22 Craig on 07.25.13 at 4:43 pm

DL I can agree with you on not wanting a Walmart, but the reality is that is somewhat a moot point. They already exist here and people love them… so they will be building more stores. That ship has sailed, so the only debate is where they build them.

DL: “Yes, WM will collect sales tax revenue for the city and state, but won’t they just be stealing business away from other retailers?”

In some cases yes, but the majority of their revenue in the longer term comes from growth. They create jobs (yes I know low paying jobs… but still jobs) which attracts more people to the area, which build homes and buy clothes and send their kids to schools and spend with other stores and businesses which leads to more growth… and on and on.

They are banking on a lot more growth which is why they wish to build there – they intend to be surrounded by new development within five years just as Dawley Farm popped up behind their East Side store.

Also the DC nonsense with Walmart is insane. It would be one thing for them to mandate a living wage to EVERY BUSINESS, but why call out Walmart alone? Surely there are other employers paying the same abysmal wages for the same amount of work, so why aren’t they included? Why not mandate the same ‘living wage’ to Target, Kmart, Home Depot, True Value, Safeway, or Whole Foods?

The fact they single out Walmart even though they aren’t the only player in the game suggests it has less to do with paying people fairly and more to do with not liking Walmart’s historically anti-union stances. Maybe there is more to it, but if they honestly want people to make a living wage then by all means make it city-wide and stop trying to pick winners and losers.

#23 Poly43 on 07.25.13 at 7:12 pm

Maybe there is more to it, but if they honestly want people to make a living wage then by all means make it city-wide and stop trying to pick winners and losers.

Good point. In this town in the office and clerical field there are 6,360 workers (nearly all women) who make less than $11.20 an hour. 2,544 of those clerical workers make less than $9.74 an hour. The same goes for a hell of a lot of other jobs in this town. There are over 34,000 jobs in SF that pay less than $11.04 an hour. Think about those numbers before you start bringing up the Walmart pay scale.

Leave a Comment