This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Centristsin2010. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
"But D.C.'s decision to ward off Walmart is still a victory. In an era when suppliers, governments, and municipalities have all been scared into acquiescing to Walmart because of its size and job-creating potential, it also took tremendous courage. D.C.'s council members knew how many jobs a Walmart could bring to town and how good creating those jobs would look on their political record. But they also knew that despite Walmart's white-washing PR campaign, those jobs were likely to be barely subsistence-wage, terribly depressing, and offset with jobs lost at local businesses. D.C. didn't prohibit Walmart from setting up stores in the district (and there will still be three, even after the abandoned ones), but it did put in place what amounted to a fairly expensive penalty for doing so.
Not all jobs are created equal. But in politics, they often get equal weight. It would have been easy for D.C.'s city council to bow to Walmart's threat, repeal or soften the minimum-wage hike, and brag to constituents about their job-creating success. Instead, they made a brave, values-driven decision about what kinds of jobs they wanted in D.C. and set policy accordingly. That's the right of every municipality, and it's an impulse that should be exercised much more often."
Yet one here claims Wal-Mart has a constituional right to do what they want, wherever they want to do it. I must have missed THAT amendment.