E-Mail 'Burden of DC's Wal-Mart Minimum Wage would be Borne by City's Poor' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Burden of DC's Wal-Mart Minimum Wage would be Borne by City's Poor' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

3 thoughts on “Burden of DC’s Wal-Mart Minimum Wage would be Borne by City’s Poor

  1. Dylan Petrohilos

    This article is bogus. High minimum wage just means more money in the neighborhoods that rely on minimum wage laws. Sorry, that wal-mart is unwilling to pay workers a half decent wage.

    “Minimum wage just means if I could pay you less I could”

  2. Bill Hostetter

    “When the employment rate falls with a higher minimum wage, those left
    without a job will be lowest-skilled workers with the fewest job choices.”

    This is an agreed-to-assumption, but statistically this is not the case.
    Besides, unemployment has more to do with demand of goods and services, rather than wages. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t see wages rise with booming economies.

    “While a higher minimum wage will benefit a group of employees who keep their jobs and otherwise would have made the lower minimum wage, policymakers must acknowledge the tradeoffs involved in a minimum wage law and that by supporting a minimum wage, they are hurting society’s least well-off members.”

    If you were correct, all earnings benchmarks would be bogus. If at any point one person made more than another, we would have to agree that such incongruity hurts anyone who makes less. Basically, anyone who makes more than the lowest paid person is harming the lowest paid. That means, Wal-Mart and all retailers would have to pay their employees a number closer to the highest paid person’s salary. In which case, you have no argument, except in the case of competition.

    With the proposed wage increase, Wal-Mart would have to find innovative ways to compete, and they could. They just aren’t interested in competition. They’re interesting in majority market-share. Historically, after periods of competition, and they have majority market-share, Wal-Mart will raise their prices, obviously, because people will pay them. Any trade-off on lowered prices from their competitors would be short lived, and those businesses would shut down, because they are “inefficient.” Coincidentally, Wal-Mart would hold the privatized regulatory standards of efficiency. As for employment and the big blue store, Wal-Mart’s not exactly known for it’s impressive employment record. Wal-Mart has a history of underemployment

  3. hamilt0n

    I wonder if commenters Dylan and Bill can explain why they don’t support a $10,000 minimum wage.

Comments are closed.