Finally some good news. Given the size and influence of government in our lives, I have become accustomed to dismaying reports followed by own cynical rationalization. Sometimes that’s all you can do to cope with the endless amount of infuriating headlines. Spying, murder, theft, bullying, deception, and the rest of the illicit toolbox the state utilizes have done such a number on my senses that it’s hard to be genuinely angry over erupting scandals.
Once in awhile that all changes. The true face of government is revealed and the lowly victim of its oppression successfully pushes back. When this happens, I can only cheer on the would-be antagonist.
Recently in Washington D.C., the department store Wal-Mart had applied to set-up shop in three locations. The City Council, which sees itself as gatekeepers to the local economy, saw an opportunity to further entrench its progressive agenda. Before the Walton family dynasty could open for business within the Imperial City limits, it would have to pay tribute to the ruling class in the form of designated “living wages.” The Council saw fit to pass a law – called the Large Retailer Accountability Act – mandating that businesses that occupy over 75,000 square feet must pay employees at least $12.50 an hour.
There was no science behind the proposal. It wasn’t as if the council members had a study conducted to determine the optimal wage level per square foot. The law was a deliberate attempt to force a company to pay a higher wage than what the market would otherwise dictate. If the men and women on the Council had a shred of spine, the law would have targeted Wal-Mart in precise language – not some phony statistic game.
This was a shakedown of the clearest variety. It was a targeted attack aimed at what the Council of muggers saw as moneybags. When it comes to economics, politicians are almost always wholly ignorant of the subject. Politicking is the discipline of rearranging societal resources by force. No forethought is put in to the consequences of state decisions. Any negative ramifications are pushed on to scapegoats like “greed” or “not enough political will.” Government is a game of winners and losers; and Wal-Mart is surely the loser in this case.
Rather than take the blow like a sad sap, management of the superstore has threatened to cancel its opening plans. Writing in the Washington Post, regional manager Alex Barron warned that if the new minimum wage exemption is made law, then “Wal-Mart will not pursue stores at Skyland, Capitol Gateway or New York Avenue.” This did not stop the Council from passing the LRAA anyway. The members smelled blood and were adamant about finishing the hunt.
Now, the new “living wage” law has yet to be signed into law by shyster Mayor Vincent Gray. There is still a chance Wal-Mart could sell its wares to District residents. But it’s doubtful the Mayor will deny the legislative body. He is a control freak in the same vein as the rest of the local government. It’s looking like Wally World will move on to greener, more friendlier pastures. And all I can say is good for them.To withdraw its plans of opening in the D.C. area doesn’t just make financial sense, it’s a poke in the eye of the thugs on the city council who thought they could boss around private buisness. Wal-Mart holds enough sway to not be David in the fight against Goliath, but the shun is nonetheless praiseworthy.
The move is already being called petty and vindictive by statist mouthpieces. In another Post article, sociologist (not an economist) Rebekah Peeples Massengill attempted to shatter some favorable myths of the big box retailer. With phrases like “exploitation,” “low wages,” and “prioritizing consumption over production,” the piece intends to be objective but is riddled with Marxist thinking. It’s common fare for Wal-Mart criticism.
The lefties over at Think Progress claim the heartless, profit-seeking company will do little to “create jobs” if it gets the green light in D.C. Citing a 2006 survey-study done by an economist at the University of Illinois Chicago, the findings purported that 40% of businesses would have closed on the west side of the Windy City due to the retailer giant’s presence. Whether that statistic was accurate is anyone’s guess. The so-called study was based solely on the answers of survey respondents. For all any skeptical observer knows, those questioned could have lied to as a means to garner sympathy. An update of the original study released in 2012 claimed that Wal-Mart failed to increase jobs net-wise in the area.
This may seem like damning evidence against Wal-Mart, but the point of economic transactions is not to create jobs. It’s to import value into one’s life, by whatever material means that encompasses. Any capitalist who enables that process by producing goods and services at an inexpensive rate is increasing the living standards of all. Even if Wal-Mart’s superior logistical capability puts competitors out of business, the income saved with the availability of cheaper goods is a wealth creator in itself.
But forget all that. Politicians who believe their job is to play Robin Hood are too enticed by big business’s profit margin. Taking from the few and giving to the many is how elections are bought and sold. There was no moral imperative for the Council’s passing of the LRAA. For a moment, let’s entertain the notion that the lawmaking body was acting under humanitarian grounds – a stretch I know. To enforce the wage mandate requires the violent compulsion of law. That means aggression is inserted into the free interactions of people. Worse, the establishment of a wage floor necessarily means involuntary unemployment. Supply and demand curves are not just stoic narrations; they are insurmountable truths.
Hearing how workers are paid high wages always makes for feel-good reassurance that the world is a fair place. But the world isn’t fair, and wages must be paid for on the back of productivity. With its price mandate, the D.C. City Council will only perpetuate the terrible market environment that low-skill workers already inhabit. For Wal-Mart to say “forget it” to the Council’s demand is a noble avengement. The city deserves such repercussions if the people want to elect a bunch of mini-dictators.
It should be pointed out that Wal-Mart is no paragon of free market capitalism. A former CEO once called for the raising of the national minimum wage. This was not a drastic change of heart, from Randian self-interest to bleeding heart compassion. It was a calculated move to ensure small-time competitors would be burdened by state regulation. Lefitsts who can’t think more than two feet in front of their brain refuse to acknowledge the corporate incentive of mandatory wages.
In some ways, the adopting of a “living wage” in the District of Columbia can be seen as payback for Wal-Mart’s past sin of cozying up to the state. But I am relishing in the company’s denial of being a sacrificial lamb for the Council’s overstated conceptions of its own good. If the D.C. government wants to push around a private company into obeying inane conceptions of “fair” and like, then the abused has every right to walk away. The citizens can suffer likewise. If they don’t want the bread of capitalism, well then qu’ils mangent de la brioche.