Sunday, January 17, 2016

Actions have consequences. Who knew?

So a couple years ago, Walmart planned to open five stores in Washington, DC. Of course they were opposed by the unions, who hate Walmart because they aren't a union shop, and by numerous Democrats on the union payroll and assorted leftists, yuppies and hipsters that have recently moved into Washington DC and immediately began decrying the gentrification that allowed them to do so.

DC built three of the five stores, putting them in the better neighborhoods. Part of the deal that they made with DC was that two of the stores would have to be put in the "low income" neighborhoods, aka: the ghetto areas.

Next, the DC council and the mayor pushed through new laws in the District that jumped the minimum wage, first to $11.50 an hour but with another proposal on the table to boost it to $15.00 an hour (but only in large businesses like Walmart) and forced (large) employers to pay for family and medical leave for their employees and set a minimum number of hours for any part-timers that they choose to hire. Walmart, already seeing losses in their big-box stores from internet competitors like Amazon, did the math on what DC's pending legislation would cost it and decided that the two new stores that they had originally planned to build likely would not be profitable. So they did what any other responsible business would do--they cut their losses and walked away from the plan to put the two new stores down in the 'hood.

Naturally, the Democrats who killed this golden goose--and their cheerleader, the Washington Post--are furious now.

District leaders furious Walmart breaking promise to build stores in poor neighborhoods

They seek to blame Walmart for backing out on the new stores and the jobs and goods that it would have made available to the folks in those neighborhoods, but the real fact is that, by voting to enact new measures that raised Walmart's cost of doing business, they pretty much ensured that Walmart could not run those stores profitably, especially in areas where theft and insurance costs are above average and where nearby suburban shoppers are unlikely to shop anyway for fear of the crime rate in those neighborhoods. Originally it was thought that profits generated at the three stores in the better areas would balance out the two less-desirable locations, but when DC raised the cost of doing business at all of them--all while continuing to bad-mouth Walmart for being non-union and paying wages that no one except Walmart employees seem to want--Walmart's board did what they had to and cut DC loose. And the only ones who never saw this coming, apparently, are the ones in DC government who made it all happen.

Good job, DC Council and Mayor. You've proven again why DC cannot be given a vote in Congress and why it should probably lose the limited self-rule that it currently has. When you let children plan the household menu without oversight, it'll be cake and ice cream for dinner every night. And then one day you'll wonder why everyone is sickly and the dental costs are through the roof.


  1. Good points and a good find!!!

    I tweeted out a link to btw.

  2. Anonymous8:55 PM

    For years the Idiots In Charge lamented - very loudly - that the Corporate meanies who ran grocery chains hated D.C. (eg., were RACIST !!) because they didn't build stores in the "disadvantaged" neighborhoods. Small neighborhood stores - what in NYC is called a bodega - were more expensive (gee, I wonder why....) and didn't have many brand selections.

    IIRC, not that many years back Safeway bit the bullet and jumped in (no clue if D.C. provided enticements or subsidies) and put a store in one of the 'hoods.

    Didn't take long before they were experiencing armed robberies almost monthly, and security costs to prevent the meats from disappearing were sky high, not to mention the quantity of stuff being "escorted" out the back door. And IIRC, Safeway admitted defeat and ended the experiment after about 15 months.

    I am often surprised to discover that the laws of physics still work in D.C.; nothing else seems to.

  3. Their 'losses' in the hood would have wiped out the profit from ALL of the DC stores...

  4. When the hood stops behaving like the hood it will stop being treated like the hood. But then then it's part of the whole mentality that has turned a career criminal who sold drugs to the children in the hood into Saint Freddy just north of DC.

    And DC kept electing ol' Marion. Which is proof enough that the hammer needs to be taken away from the child.

  5. Hey Murphy;

    Yeah..Democrats have problems with that "cause and effect" thingie....

  6. I'm not a 'fan' of WM, but I am a believer in the marketplace, and believe WM acted correctly.
    And you, Murphy, have spelled out the particulars with aplomb!
    (I do shop there, as I'm income-challenged, though!) :-)


  7. It is the LIBERAL Washington Post, not realistic Washington Times which published the article in the link.

    1. Whoops. My bad. Corrected. Post = Liberal, Times = honest but too many pop-up ads to bother with any more.

  8. It is the liberal mindset to think that the corporate world and successful businesses are going to pay for everyone else. It is the socialist way. At least for now, Walmart can tell them to pound sand and the penalty is probably less than the millions they would have lost in building the stores. WH is going to drive business in America right out. But it is Bush's fault. Still. 8 years later.

  9. Anonymous12:38 PM

    +1 Old NFO

  10. In education, there are two terms, liberal, and secular, one means training to a belief. But Wally world is supposedly in violation of their contract, to receive their tif. Eliminating their advantage given to them over the established mom and pops. The real question should be, should really world have to pay back the community because Wally world did not uphold their side of the contract?