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.