Washington Push for Higher Minimum Wage for Workers Has Walmart Balking

Mayor Vincent C. Gray, who worked hard to lure Walmart, finds himself caught in the middle, and many residents sound less than grateful to lawmakers.

“Those big people in government, they don’t understand my situation,” said Fred Reaves, 45, who is unemployed and said he would gladly take a job at the current city minimum, $8.25.

“Eight-something, it’ll motivate you to start going to work,” Mr. Reaves said as he stood around the Skyland Town Center, a patch of barren asphalt and shuttered stores where Walmart planned to build. “You can start paying some bills. It will help you to come off public assistance.”

On July 10, the City Council passed a “living wage” measure that would require Walmart to pay at least $12.50 an hour, saying it was fighting to protect struggling residents in what has become a high-cost city.

Supporters of the measure say that Walmart, whose revenues in 2012 were $469 billion, can well afford to pay workers more.

“Their net income was $17 billion,” said Vincent Orange, a city councilman who voted for the ordinance. “You don’t want to share a little bit with the citizens? Come on.”

A decade ago, the city gave tax breaks to lure retailers, Mr. Orange said, but now it is booming and can negotiate from strength.

The day before the City Council passed the measure, a Walmart official warned in an op-ed article in The Washington Post that if required to pay $12.50 an hour, the company would cancel three planned stores and consider withdrawing from three projects already under construction.

The next move is up to Mayor Gray, who is weighing a veto.

Officially the mayor has taken no position, but he is widely seen as opposed to the measure. The Council has delayed formally sending it to his desk for action. The measure, called the Large Retailer Accountability Act, would require stores of at least 75,000 square feet that are owned by companies with $1 billion or more in annual revenue to pay the higher minimum wage. Because existing stores and those with unions are exempt, it is seen as squarely aimed at Walmart.

As Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, has sought inroads in major cities, it has faced resistance from local merchants, who fear being undercut, and from officials who say minimum-wage jobs mire workers in poverty.

Democrats on the House of Representatives work force committee produced a report this spring contending that the government subsidizes Walmart because employees earn so little that they qualify for Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.

Pedro Ribeiro, a spokesman for Mayor Gray, argued the opposite: minimum-wage jobs help the chronically unemployed take a first step into the work force.

“Yes, Walmart jobs are not great,” Mr. Ribeiro said. “But for some people, it will be their first employment and they’re not qualified to do anything else. We need that entry-level benchmark in the District.”

Washington is experiencing an economic revival, with population growth on a par with Sun Belt cities. But the benefits are not spread evenly. East of the Anacostia River in Ward 7, where two of the Walmart stores, including the Skyland site, are planned, unemployment is 13.9 percent. In nearby Ward 8, it is 20 percent.

Victor L. Hoskins, the deputy mayor for development, said Walmart’s threat to cancel projects if the measure took effect was no bluff. He calculated that 4,000 retail and construction jobs were at stake from three of the projects.

“The question is not $8.25 versus $12.50,” Mr. Hoskins said. “The question is $8.25 versus zero. It’s called no jobs.”

Opposite the Skyland site, on Good Hope Road, Carl Williams, 49, a barber at the Like That salon, whose dozen barbers were bustling on Thursday afternoon, had mixed feelings. He thought $12.50 was a fair starting wage. But he said he would not hesitate to encourage his two daughters to take a job at Walmart for $8.25.

“One who is 21 needs a job real bad,” he said. “She had a baby real young and didn’t finish high school.”

At a nearby Shoe City, the assistant manager acknowledged that Walmart might undercut her prices. But the giant retailer would also increase foot traffic in the neighborhood, which could benefit Shoe City, the manager, Shasherri Hindman, said.

Ms. Hindman, 25, said she started at minimum wage five years ago and worked her way up. “What’s wrong with $8.25?” she said. “I’m totally on Walmart’s side.”

Willie Ford, 39, a carpenter, scoffed at the notion that Walmart could not afford to pay $12.50. “Come on, they’re going to make beaucoup money from this area,” he said. At the same time, he acknowledged that many people in the neighborhood would gladly take a job at $8.25. “Like a newborn baby, you’ve got to crawl before you walk,” he said.

Washington Push for Higher Minimum Wage for Workers Has Walmart Balking

Mayor Vincent C. Gray, who worked hard to lure Walmart, finds himself caught in the middle, and many residents sound less than grateful to lawmakers.

“Those big people in government, they don’t understand my situation,” said Fred Reaves, 45, who is unemployed and said he would gladly take a job at the current city minimum, $8.25.

“Eight-something, it’ll motivate you to start going to work,” Mr. Reaves said as he stood around the Skyland Town Center, a patch of barren asphalt and shuttered stores where Walmart planned to build. “You can start paying some bills. It will help you to come off public assistance.”

On July 10, the City Council passed a “living wage” measure that would require Walmart to pay at least $12.50 an hour, saying it was fighting to protect struggling residents in what has become a high-cost city.

Supporters of the measure say that Walmart, whose revenues in 2012 were $469 billion, can well afford to pay workers more.

“Their net income was $17 billion,” said Vincent Orange, a city councilman who voted for the ordinance. “You don’t want to share a little bit with the citizens? Come on.”

A decade ago, the city gave tax breaks to lure retailers, Mr. Orange said, but now it is booming and can negotiate from strength.

The day before the City Council passed the measure, a Walmart official warned in an op-ed article in The Washington Post that if required to pay $12.50 an hour, the company would cancel three planned stores and consider withdrawing from three projects already under construction.

The next move is up to Mayor Gray, who is weighing a veto.

Officially the mayor has taken no position, but he is widely seen as opposed to the measure. The Council has delayed formally sending it to his desk for action. The measure, called the Large Retailer Accountability Act, would require stores of at least 75,000 square feet that are owned by companies with $1 billion or more in annual revenue to pay the higher minimum wage. Because existing stores and those with unions are exempt, it is seen as squarely aimed at Walmart.

As Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, has sought inroads in major cities, it has faced resistance from local merchants, who fear being undercut, and from officials who say minimum-wage jobs mire workers in poverty.

Democrats on the House of Representatives work force committee produced a report this spring contending that the government subsidizes Walmart because employees earn so little that they qualify for Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.

Pedro Ribeiro, a spokesman for Mayor Gray, argued the opposite: minimum-wage jobs help the chronically unemployed take a first step into the work force.

“Yes, Walmart jobs are not great,” Mr. Ribeiro said. “But for some people, it will be their first employment and they’re not qualified to do anything else. We need that entry-level benchmark in the District.”

Washington is experiencing an economic revival, with population growth on a par with Sun Belt cities. But the benefits are not spread evenly. East of the Anacostia River in Ward 7, where two of the Walmart stores, including the Skyland site, are planned, unemployment is 13.9 percent. In nearby Ward 8, it is 20 percent.

Victor L. Hoskins, the deputy mayor for development, said Walmart’s threat to cancel projects if the measure took effect was no bluff. He calculated that 4,000 retail and construction jobs were at stake from three of the projects.

“The question is not $8.25 versus $12.50,” Mr. Hoskins said. “The question is $8.25 versus zero. It’s called no jobs.”

Opposite the Skyland site, on Good Hope Road, Carl Williams, 49, a barber at the Like That salon, whose dozen barbers were bustling on Thursday afternoon, had mixed feelings. He thought $12.50 was a fair starting wage. But he said he would not hesitate to encourage his two daughters to take a job at Walmart for $8.25.

“One who is 21 needs a job real bad,” he said. “She had a baby real young and didn’t finish high school.”

At a nearby Shoe City, the assistant manager acknowledged that Walmart might undercut her prices. But the giant retailer would also increase foot traffic in the neighborhood, which could benefit Shoe City, the manager, Shasherri Hindman, said.

Ms. Hindman, 25, said she started at minimum wage five years ago and worked her way up. “What’s wrong with $8.25?” she said. “I’m totally on Walmart’s side.”

Willie Ford, 39, a carpenter, scoffed at the notion that Walmart could not afford to pay $12.50. “Come on, they’re going to make beaucoup money from this area,” he said. At the same time, he acknowledged that many people in the neighborhood would gladly take a job at $8.25. “Like a newborn baby, you’ve got to crawl before you walk,” he said.

Economic View: The Minimum Wage, Employment and Income Distribution

I don’t believe that’s because economists care less about the plight of the poor — many economists are perfectly nice people who care deeply about poverty and income inequality. Rather, economic analysis raises questions about whether a higher minimum wage will achieve better outcomes for the economy and reduce poverty.

First, what’s the argument for having a minimum wage at all? Many of my students assume that government protection is the only thing ensuring decent wages for most American workers. But basic economics shows that competition between employers for workers can be very effective at preventing businesses from misbehaving. If every other store in town is paying workers $9 an hour, one offering $8 will find it hard to hire anyone — perhaps not when unemployment is high, but certainly in normal times. Robust competition is a powerful force helping to ensure that workers are paid what they contribute to their employers’ bottom lines.

One argument for a minimum wage is that there sometimes isn’t enough competition among employers. In our nation’s history, there have been company towns where one employer truly dominated the local economy. As a result, that employer could affect the going wage for the entire area. In such a situation, a minimum wage can not only make workers better off but can also lead to more efficient levels of production and employment.

But I suspect that few people, including economists, find this argument compelling today. Company towns are largely a thing of the past in this country; even Wal-Mart Stores, the nation’s largest employer, faces substantial competition for workers in most places. And many employers paying the minimum wage are small businesses that clearly face strong competition for workers.

Instead, most arguments for instituting or raising a minimum wage are based on fairness and redistribution. Even if workers are getting a competitive wage, many of us are deeply disturbed that some hard-working families still have very little. Though a desire to help the poor is largely a moral issue, economics can help us think about how successful a higher minimum wage would be at reducing poverty.

An important issue is who benefits. When the minimum wage rises, is income redistributed primarily to poor families, or do many families higher up the income ladder benefit as well?

It is true, as conservative commentators often point out, that some minimum-wage workers are middle-class teenagers or secondary earners in fairly well-off households. But the available data suggest that roughly half the workers likely to be affected by the $9-an-hour level proposed by the president are in families earning less than $40,000 a year. So while raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour may not be particularly well targeted as an anti-poverty proposal, it’s not badly targeted, either.

A related issue is whether some low-income workers will lose their jobs when businesses have to pay a higher minimum wage. There’s been a tremendous amount of research on this topic, and the bulk of the empirical analysis finds that the overall adverse employment effects are small.

Some evidence suggests that employment doesn’t fall much because the higher minimum wage lowers labor turnover, which raises productivity and labor demand. But it’s possible that productivity also rises because the higher minimum attracts more efficient workers to the labor pool. If these new workers are typically more affluent — perhaps middle-income spouses or retirees — and end up taking some jobs held by poorer workers, a higher minimum could harm the truly disadvantaged.

Another reason that employment may not fall is that businesses pass along some of the cost of a higher minimum wage to consumers through higher prices. Often, the customers paying those prices — including some of the diners at McDonald’s and the shoppers at Walmart — have very low family incomes. Thus this price effect may harm the very people whom a minimum wage is supposed to help.

It’s precisely because the redistributive effects of a minimum wage are complicated that most economists prefer other ways to help low-income families. For example, the current tax system already subsidizes work by the poor via an earned-income tax credit. A low-income family with earned income gets a payment from the government that supplements its wages. This approach is very well targeted — the subsidy goes only to poor families — and could easily be made more generous.

By raising the reward for working, this tax credit also tends to increase the supply of labor. And that puts downward pressure on wages. As a result, some of the benefits go to businesses, as would be the case with any wage subsidy. Though this mutes some of the direct redistributive value of the program — particularly if there’s no constraining minimum wage — it also tends to increase employment. And a job may ultimately be the most valuable thing for a family struggling to escape poverty.

What about the macroeconomic argument that is sometimes made for raising the minimum wage? Poorer people typically spend a larger fraction of their income than more affluent people. So if an increase in the minimum wage successfully redistributed some income to the poor, it could increase overall consumer spending — which could stimulate employment and output growth.

All of this is true, but the effects would probably be small. The president’s proposal would raise annual income by $3,500 for a full-time minimum-wage worker. A recent analysis found that 13 million workers earn less than $9 an hour. If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in spending behavior between low-income and high-income consumers is likely to translate into only about an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in consumer purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion economy.

SO where does all of this leave us? The economics of the minimum wage are complicated, and it’s far from obvious what an increase would accomplish. If a higher minimum wage were the only anti-poverty initiative available, I would support it. It helps some low-income workers, and the costs in terms of employment and inefficiency are likely small.

But we could do so much better if we were willing to spend some money. A more generous earned-income tax credit would provide more support for the working poor and would be pro-business at the same time. And pre-kindergarten education, which the president proposes to make universal, has been shown in rigorous studies to strengthen families and reduce poverty and crime. Why settle for half-measures when such truly first-rate policies are well understood and ready to go?

Christina D. Romer is an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and was the chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.