Not a big Walmart fan, but I have to applaud this:

[badrose]

http://www.caintv.com/in-washington-d.c.walmart-shru

For the last three years, Walmart has been knee-deep in plans to build and open six stores in Washington DC. Once completed, the project would bring 1800 jobs, fresh produce, and inexpensive shopping to lower-income areas which, traditionally, were lacking all three. Half of the new stores are already under construction, with the first scheduled to open in the fall. Everything seemed to be going swimmingly.

So, of course, the city's left-wing government had to step in and screw it all up.

This afternoon, Washington DC's city council decided it would approve what it calls the "Large Retailer Accountability Act." The new measure forces any retailer whose parent company does over $1 Billion in annual sales to pay their employees "a living wage."

What's a living wage, you ask? Try $12.50 an hour. That's a whopping $4.25 more than Washington DC's already higher-than-average $8.25 per hour minimum wage.

Hang on, though, because it gets even better. You would assume the law applies equally to every store, right? Wrong. The bill contains exemptions for large stores with unionized workforces. If your establishment has managed to avoid the "collective bargaining" shakedown, well... sorry. You're in the crosshairs of a law designed to attack any big-box outfit which has the audacity not to unionize - namely, it targets Walmart.

During today's hearing, which ultimately led to the bill's approval, an amendment was proposed which would have extended similar exemptions to the three new Walmarts which were already under construction. That amendment was voted down by a 10-3 margin.

No love for you, Walmart. You've committed the unforgivable sin of selling cheap Pringles.

After working- for years - to bring the stores to DC, Walmart is now faced with a city council that has decided to upend their business model by forcing them to pay prospective employees more than they can afford. It's an epic bait-and-switch, built on a hatred of non-union capitalism and buoyed by the belief that Walmart is too far along in its plans to back out.

...and to their credit, Walmart may not be willing to tolerate it.

In a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday, Walmart regional general manager Alex Barron announced that the retail giant is ready to abandon the entire project. Rumors are swirling that, now that it's been approved, Mayor Vincent Gray may veto the bill. However, if it's enacted as written, Walmart has vowed to end development on the three yet-to-be-constructed stores, while it reviews its options regarding the others.

"Wal-Mart will not pursue stores at Skyland, Capitol Gateway or New York Avenue if the LRAA is passed," Barron wrote. "What's more, passage would also jeopardize the three stores already under construction, as we would thoroughly review the financial and legal implications of the bill on those projects."



Yes, the implied threat is that they may simply pull up stakes and leave town.

Sadly, instead of creating 1800 new jobs, the left’s relentless desire to punish non-union retailers may leave DC with three empty buildings, no additional workers, less revenue from taxes, and a hostile business climate which will scare off other potential retailers.

Congratulations to the liberal brain trust.

[CitizenBBN]

Walmart announced today the they are canceling the 3 stores that were planned, and they're considering what to do with the 3 under construction. The mayor hasn't signed it yet, but given the climate I'd be very hesitant to build the stores then hope the mayor doesn't agree in the future to such a law and they've lost even more money. They can't be trusted, and the deeper Walmart is into the project the more leverage DC has against them, so those three are dead for sure.

[Darrell KSR]

I am not a Walmart fan either (although you couldn't prove it by the number of times my clan, including me, shops there), but this is just wrong, dirty politics, and whatever Walmart wants to do is fine by me as a result.

[suncat05]

Absolutely the D.C. city commission cannot be trusted. And just another example of the Democratic party's hatred toward free market economy that has up until this administration took office, made this country the economic engine it has been.

[MickintheHam]

Absolutely the D.C. city commission cannot be trusted. And just another example of the Democratic party's hatred toward free market economy that has up until this administration took office, made this country the economic engine it has been.

I'm sorry, I cannot post in this thread without completely losing it.

[BigBlueBrock]

Absolutely the D.C. city commission cannot be trusted. And just another example of the Democratic party's hatred toward free market economy that has up until this administration took office, made this country the economic engine it has been.

lol

[suncat05]

Did I say say something funny?

[BigBlueBrock]

More than one thing. lol that you think this has to do with the Democratic party's "hatred of free market economy," lol that you think the Democratic party hates the idea of a free market economy, and lol that you think the economy of the United States has been anything resembling a free market anytime in the last 100 years, much less 50, 25, or 10 years.

[CitizenBBN]

lol

Not sure I'd throw the whole Democratic party under the bus, but I will the DC city council and the President. One of their members was defending the vote immediately began talking about how much Walmart makes, how much their CEO makes, how if people want to do business in DC they need to "share the wealth" with the people of DC. Standard leftist mantra that has nothing to do with the market price for labor in DC.

The exempted union businesses like the groceries, and he cited that it wasn't just Wal Mart, a Costco just opened there, but of course those businesses are already there and open, doesn't mean they would have if they'd known this was coming. Doesn't mean they'll stay open either.

So, since Walmart is unwilling to pay well above market for labor and create a wealth transfer above and beyond what is demanded by the market, those 2000 people won't have any job. 18K a year is better than $0 per year (or the $9K/yr the working poor in DC average now), but the leftist placement of "fairness" above "improvement" almost always ends with people being worse off in the end and the outcome being even less fair. Now the Walmart CEO not only makes more than them, he has a job and they don't. Instead of being happy with progress that would have spurred more economic growth and made people in DC better off, they are now just as bad off as ever, and they have Leftism to thank for it.

Instead of stepping back and realizing that over time the best way to improve people's lives is to let the market function, these people step in and try to stack the deck, and everyone ends up worse off for it. DC just lost a major anchor that would have led to many more businesses, services and jobs above and beyond those direct jobs they lost, and the long term economic progress it all would have brought.

[BigBlueBrock]

I should say that I don't agree with what the DC city council is doing because they're obviously targeting Wal-Mart because they "don't like it." They have some legitimate reasons to not like Wal-Mart and I don't begrudge them those feelings. But targeting specific retailers or business owners isn't apropos, in my opinion. I don't like it when city councils do it with things like adult stores, either (which is common in small town America). Wal-Mart has a lot of shitty business practices, a horrible corporate culture, and they treat their employees terribly. But if people want to shop there, then they should be allowed to move in to whatever community will have them.

[CitizenBBN]

Brock this guy claimed it targeted about 10 retailers there, including Costco and Macy's, but I really wonder how long those places will remain.

DC has massive wealth disparity. You have uber-rich high end workers who are all federal employees (the average for the top 5th is something like $450,000/yr), and the bottom 5th is $9,000/yr. Costco/Macy's are there for that top 5th, but that top 5th can be in Arlington et al pretty easy. Esp for a Macy's, where it's less of a 'stop at the grocery' shopping experience, I imagine they'll be looking close at that lease.

[BigBlueBrock]

Not sure I'd throw the whole Democratic party under the bus, but I will the DC city council and the President.

You could likely fit the number of DC politicians that believe in a truly unhindered and open "free market" in my apartment, even if you grabbed from both sides of the aisle. Republicans just dress their side up as "pro business."

[CitizenBBN]

You could likely fit the number of DC politicians that believe in a truly unhindered and open "free market" in my apartment, even if you grabbed from both sides of the aisle. Republicans just dress their side up as "pro business."

Agreed. with room left over for a group of KSR folks to come over and watch the game. :)

[suncat05]

More than one thing. lol that you think this has to do with the Democratic party's "hatred of free market economy," lol that you think the Democratic party hates the idea of a free market economy, and lol that you think the economy of the United States has been anything resembling a free market anytime in the last 100 years, much less 50, 25, or 10 years.

Then explain to me how I am even close to being wrong.

[BigBlueBrock]

Then explain to me how I am even close to being wrong.

I explained it above - the city council (or at least some of the members) don't like Wal-Mart as a business and they're using their power as a legislative body to either force Wal-Mart to conform to business practices they agree with or stay out. When a small town city council refuses to issue a business license to someone looking to open an adult store, does that mean they hate the free market economy? Of course not (they're not thinking that big).

[Doc]

In a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday, Walmart regional general manager Alex Barron announced that the retail giant is ready to abandon the entire project

And the nanny state is fine with that. Nothing promotes dependancy on the government like joblessness followed by the promise that the government will "take care of you"

[Doc]

I should say that I don't agree with what the DC city council is doing because they're obviously targeting Wal-Mart because they "don't like it." They have some legitimate reasons to not like Wal-Mart and I don't begrudge them those feelings. But targeting specific retailers or business owners isn't apropos, in my opinion. I don't like it when city councils do it with things like adult stores, either (which is common in small town America). Wal-Mart has a lot of shitty business practices, a horrible corporate culture, and they treat their employees terribly. But if people want to shop there, then they should be allowed to move in to whatever community will have them.


This isn't about the people who shop at Walmart. Nor is about how Walmart treats their employees. One thing about employees is that if they don't like the way they are being treated then they can quit. If they don't like their pay, they can quit. If a company pays so poorly or treats their employee's so bad that they can't get good employees they will fail. However what this is about goes back to picking winners and losers within the business world. Having a different baseline pay for one business is flat out wrong.

[BigBlueBrock]

This isn't about the people who shop at Walmart. Nor is about how Walmart treats their employees. One thing about employees is that if they don't like the way they are being treated then they can quit. If they don't like their pay, they can quit. If a company pays so poorly or treats their employee's so bad that they can't get good employees they will fail. However what this is about goes back to picking winners and losers within the business world. Having a different baseline pay for one business is flat out wrong.

You're right (mostly) about the first thing you said. But you're wrong about the second (and you're wrong about everything that follows, except for your last point). It is about how Wal-Mart treats its employees. Employees cannot simply "quit" if they don't like how they're being treated or their pay because sometimes they have no choice. Wal-Mart might be the only work they can find. Saying "well if you don't like how much you're paid, just quit and find another job" reeks of privileged elitism. Some people don't have a choice. You can't rail against welfare and food stamps and also tell people to just quit their jobs if they don't like their pay. It's not that simple. And before you say "well, maybe they should do something to qualify for a better job," I'd again remind you - IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.

And this isn't me stumping for a living wage or whatever else - that's an entirely different discussion. I am simply addressing the points you made in that post.

[Doc]

So the government decides that Walmart should pay more than other store? That is elitism when the government feels it can and will dictate what one company pays.

And you're wrong about quitting since the only place that employes folks isn't walmart. You don't like working for Sam Walton then go work for the folks at Target or K-mart or Big Lots. It really is that simple and there isn't any elitism about it. It works on every level. First job out of school was at an emergency clinic. I didn't like the hours so I quit. Went to work for another jackass. Didn't like the way he treated me so I quit. Found another job where I worked normal hours, was treated well and paid what I felt I was worth. Guy I worked for thought I was worth it too so he was more than happy to pay me more than the last dope who worked for him. He paid me because I produced, plain and simple. I made him money thus he paid me money. See this isn't the hills of backwoods KY where there is only one employer in town. If there are two stores then you have two options. If there are three stores you have three options. And if your a good worker then an employer will usually pay you to keep you because you are worth it.

[BigBlueBrock]

So the government decides that Walmart should pay more than other store? That is elitism when the government feels it can and will dictate what one company pays.

And you're wrong about quitting since the only place that employes folks isn't walmart. You don't like working for Sam Walton then go work for the folks at Target or K-mart or Big Lots. It really is that simple and there isn't any elitism about it. It works on every level. First job out of school was at an emergency clinic. I didn't like the hours so I quit. Went to work for another jackass. Didn't like the way he treated me so I quit. Found another job where I worked normal hours, was treated well and paid what I felt I was worth. Guy I worked for thought I was worth it too so he was more than happy to pay me more than the last dope who worked for him. He paid me because I produced, plain and simple. I made him money thus he paid me money. See this isn't the hills of backwoods KY where there is only one employer in town. If there are two stores then you have two options. If there are three stores you have three options. And if your a good worker then an employer will usually pay you to keep you because you are worth it.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless, your personal work experience as a youth is about as meaningful Donald Trump's. It might be that there isn't a Target or a K-Mart or a Big Lots, it could also be that they don't pay any better or treat their employees any better, or simply that they're not hiring at the time someone needs a job. Regardless, it is extremely callous to tell someone to "just find another job if you don't like the one you have." You cannot possibly fathom the available opportunities, or lack thereof, of everyone in a community - especially one as poor as some in DC.

As for your first point, I don't know where you got that out of what I posted. I specifically said that I think the DC city council is wrong in their actions.

[Doc]

Washington DC does not lack Walmart, target or Big Lots. A simple google search confirmed. Are Best Buys, Home Depots and a multitude of other employers that hire people too. I know reality isn't something that you want to discuss because it's a lot easier to say because they have no choice but to work for Wal-mart so let the government decide what they should pay. Sorry but thats a load of crap. If you don't like the job then QUIT and find another one or get yourself trained so you qualify for a better one. I realize that is more difficult than relying on the government to take care of you by forcing a company to pay more, I mean force one selected company to pay more while allowing other companies who provide exactly the same service or product and expect the same out of their employees, to pay less. My personal experiences are there as an example which is one step beyond what you present. You offered that some people can't quit but have ZERO evidence to support that. Also, there is nothing callus about suggesting that if you don't like your job, then go find a better one. Unless reality = callous.

[BigBlueBrock]

If you're going to keep misrepresenting my position, then I'm not going to bother "discussing" this with you.

[Doc]

There is no misrepresentation. I understand you feel the council was wrong and this isn't appropriate. You were the one who brought up the working conditions and Walmart being a "shitty" employer, not me. In fact I clearly stated that (This isn't about the people who shop at Walmart. Nor is about how Walmart treats their employees)

But if you want to take your ball and go home, fine. Just don't bring something into the discussion then complain when somebody calls you on it.

[BigBlueBrock]

There is no misrepresentation. I understand you feel the council was wrong and this isn't appropriate. You were the one who brought up the working conditions and Walmart being a "shitty" employer, not me. In fact I clearly stated that (This isn't about the people who shop at Walmart. Nor is about how Walmart treats their employees)

But if you want to take your ball and go home, fine. Just don't bring something into the discussion then complain when somebody calls you on it.

Obviously we have a differing opinion on the motivation of the city council. That's fine.

[jazyd]

If Walmart was a "shitty" company to work for they would not be as large as they are. I know quite a few that work for them and I have not heard any more bad things about them than most any other employer. Most of that crap comes from unions trying to make them look terrible in order to convince the employees to unionize, much like they are trying to do with Nisson in miss.
It is truly amusing the crap the union people are putting in the media about how bad Nisson treats their employees. Most couldn't get a job making $10 an hour before Nisson came, now they make around$22 hour but are told how bad they have it,

Retailers just cannot pay employees big wages and keep their prices down.

DC democrats not only robbed citizens a chance to make wages, they threw away a tax base in property and sales taxes, but have made sure their citizens can't get lower priced quality goods.

This administration, the democrat party, and the DC idiots have totally pitted unions against business. Screw jobs, taxes, wages, just make sure the union bosses an have their hefty salaries, their psh offices, their golf course resorts and all the perks they can manage. Those asses in DC talk about how much WM execs make w/o mentioning what union heads make.

My cousin was a terminal mgr of a huge trucking company and did much of the negotiations for the company with unions. He hates them and could keep you up days telling you stories. He once told his own dad he would have "fired his ass" for the stuff he did as a union worker.

DC's loss, citizens loss. Doesn't hurt WM at all

[CitizenBBN]

Doesn't take much to divine their motivation IMO, they were happy to state it. Standard "Wal Mart is rich, they need to share the wealth" viewpoint. They think anyone with a job should make no less than enough that a couple can afford to buy a house (American politicians are obsessed with home ownership), and they figure Wal Mart can afford to make less and provide that minimum. They give other businesses a pass, but figure they can get it from Wal Mart.

It's not particular to some injustice by Wal Mart, it's just application of the basic premise of the Steve Dallas Rule: Never ever ever sue a poor person.

Basic leftist "fairness" and social justice. It's not like they're hiding it or not proud of it.

[dethbylt]

Doesn't take much to divine their motivation IMO, they were happy to state it. Standard "Wal Mart is rich, they need to share the wealth" viewpoint. They think anyone with a job should make no less than enough that a couple can afford to buy a house (American politicians are obsessed with home ownership), and they figure Wal Mart can afford to make less and provide that minimum. They give other businesses a pass, but figure they can get it from Wal Mart.

It's not particular to some injustice by Wal Mart, it's just application of the basic premise of the Steve Dallas Rule: Never ever ever sue a poor person.

Basic leftist "fairness" and social justice. It's not like they're hiding it or not proud of it.

Bloom County reference wins this thread.

DC has other businesses capable of hiring folks qualified to be employed at WalMart. Food service, labor at factories, and god forbid public service would all suffice. Anyone that thinks this is anything other than socialist sharing of wealth, aimed at someone who is extremely successful, is blind.

[BigBlueBrock]

I get and understand what you guys are saying, but I believe this is a particular vendetta against Wal-Mart as a company and less about ideology abd principles of "fairness" or "wealth distribution." IMO, if it were about either of those, you'd have seen this kind of legislation from the DC city council prior to Wal-Mart attempting to move in (because, like you said, it's not as if Wal-Mart is the sole or even greatest offender). But you didn't, which tells me that Wal-Mart's more publicized business practices have earned it a reputation of "not in my community," at least as some city councilors are concerned.

[suncat05]

I get and understand what you guys are saying, but I believe this is a particular vendetta against Wal-Mart as a company and less about ideology abd principles of "fairness" or "wealth distribution." IMO, if it were about either of those, you'd have seen this kind of legislation from the DC city council prior to Wal-Mart attempting to move in (because, like you said, it's not as if Wal-Mart is the sole or even greatest offender). But you didn't, which tells me that Wal-Mart's more publicized business practices have earned it a reputation of "not in my community," at least as some city councilors are concerned.

Wrong! This is exactly about ideology and wealth redistribution. And the city council said so in their statement. I do see some of your argument, especially concerning some of WalMart's business practices, but then too I also see Doc and jazy's points about decision making choices & this particular brand of "social engineering". What the illustrious D.C. council has done is rob itself of possibly millions of dollars in differing tax revenues while also taking decision making away from its constituents and depriving same of the freedom to shop where they choose. Because, and you know this anyway, they'd hate to let the unwashed masses actually make a decision on their own without "Big Brother's" approval.

[Doc]

I find it troublesome that he govt would legislate for fewer jobs which is what they are doing. This isn't a prohibition on a certain type of business but rather a specific company or companies that have achieved a certain level of success. Its nothing more than pe alize the evil rich without consideration for the consequences. Here the consequences are a major employer move and takes their jobs with them. However I'm sure it will be seen as "jobs saved.

[jazyd]

This has a lot to do with unions and playoffs for donations in the tens of millions, this is about unions trying nationally to embarrass in the media because they are the big giant, the money pit they need to prop up the losses unions have incurred for years. Not Macy's, lowes, Home Depot, Target. Only WM is in towns and cities everywhere.

This s the democrat party and union thugs and powerful bosses with millions of dollars changing hands, some we know about and some we dont

[badrose]

D.C. gov't. doesn't pay a living wage.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/DC-Government-Doesnt-Pay-a-Living-Wage-215585001.html

[CitizenBBN]

D.C. gov't. doesn't pay a living wage.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/DC-Government-Doesnt-Pay-a-Living-Wage-215585001.html

lol.

I'm sure it's scaring off businesses big time. INvest all that money and then hope they don't screw you? I'm sure Arlington would love to have my fancy new store...

[jazyd]

Again this isn't about a living wage, it is about a payoff to unions

[kritikalcat]

Really aside from the issues here, just curious about something. I've never stepped foot inside a Costco. What is different about Costco vs. WalMart that Costco pays cashiers almost double, low level management $10K/year more, has 15% union (vs. 0 at WM), 88% health coverage (vs. about 50%) yet had last term profits increase 19% vs 1% for Walmart? (and has lower employee turnover - not surprising) ??

Are they completely apples and oranges? I'm not suggesting that anyone should force WalMart to pay cashiers $16/hour, unionize, etc. but on the surface at least it appears that Costco's model works well for them.

[BigBlueBrock]

Really aside from the issues here, just curious about something. I've never stepped foot inside a Costco. What is different about Costco vs. WalMart that Costco pays cashiers almost double, low level management $10K/year more, has 15% union (vs. 0 at WM), 88% health coverage (vs. about 50%) yet had last term profits increase 19% vs 1% for Walmart? (and has lower employee turnover - not surprising) ??

Are they completely apples and oranges? I'm not suggesting that anyone should force WalMart to pay cashiers $16/hour, unionize, etc. but on the surface at least it appears that Costco's model works well for them.

Without really looking into it, on the surface I'd say its market share. That is, Wal-Mart has reached max saturation (or near enough) in the market whereas Costco is still growing.

[badrose]

I miss Costco living here in Podunk, NC.

[CitizenBBN]

Really aside from the issues here, just curious about something. I've never stepped foot inside a Costco. What is different about Costco vs. WalMart that Costco pays cashiers almost double, low level management $10K/year more, has 15% union (vs. 0 at WM), 88% health coverage (vs. about 50%) yet had last term profits increase 19% vs 1% for Walmart? (and has lower employee turnover - not surprising) ??

Are they completely apples and oranges? I'm not suggesting that anyone should force WalMart to pay cashiers $16/hour, unionize, etc. but on the surface at least it appears that Costco's model works well for them.

Costco is more like a Sam's, (or a Pace for us older folks), a warehouse store, so there's a good bit less labor involved in the operation as far as I understand it. You don't have nearly as much in stocking shelves b/c there are no shelves really. Not sure where you got those numbers but I'd be curious how Costco compares to the Sam's stores b/c that would be a good apples/apples comparison.

[BigBlueBrock]

Costco is more like a Sam's, (or a Pace for us older folks), a warehouse store, so there's a good bit less labor involved in the operation as far as I understand it. You don't have nearly as much in stocking shelves b/c there are no shelves really. Not sure where you got those numbers but I'd be curious how Costco compares to the Sam's stores b/c that would be a good apples/apples comparison.

The question would be does Wal-Mart publish separate numbers for the two stores.

Walmart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart) does not release individual financial data for Sam's Club, other than year over year performance. Sam's Club reported an 8.4% sales increase in 2012, 3.9% in 2011, -1.4% in 2010, and 4.9% in both 2009 and 2008. This is significantly higher growth than Walmart U.S. stores, who did not have higher than 0.3% growth since 2009.

They do not.

[UKHistory]

The people at the highest end in DC are corporate guys, lawyers, pro athletes, tech guys.

That is not to say that federal employees don't make good money. but the cost of living is pretty high.

Quality shopping has all but left DC proper. I hate how we lost Woody's Department store. Macy's is here but Maryland (Chevy Chase) and Tyson's Corner in Va are where the most expensive shopping is.

I am not a Walmart fan but trying to change the law after they agree to come is poor form. This is an expensive place to live and I don't begrudge anyone for getting $12/hour, writing a law that only applies to a select few businesses is wrong.

I know about Walmart business plans and how they treat people. Don't want to root for them.

As troubled I am by the DC council, I also think about how the coal companies refused to pay employees in money but rather company script.

A lot of business out there would glady pay folks next to nothing or nothing if they could. I can't put my faith soley in the market.


Brock this guy claimed it targeted about 10 retailers there, including Costco and Macy's, but I really wonder how long those places will remain.

DC has massive wealth disparity. You have uber-rich high end workers who are all federal employees (the average for the top 5th is something like $450,000/yr), and the bottom 5th is $9,000/yr. Costco/Macy's are there for that top 5th, but that top 5th can be in Arlington et al pretty easy. Esp for a Macy's, where it's less of a 'stop at the grocery' shopping experience, I imagine they'll be looking close at that lease.

[UKHistory]

Thanks for that. Typical double standard and hypocritical stance by the DC city government. No fan of Walmart but businesses need to be treated fairly and businesses then in turn need to treat employees fairly.


D.C. gov't. doesn't pay a living wage.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/DC-Government-Doesnt-Pay-a-Living-Wage-215585001.html

[CitizenBBN]

History I really put that poorly. I meant just the highest end appointees, NGO heads, the big wig consultants and lobbyists, that group. I should have said "government related" b/c many aren't on the official payroll, but in my cynical view I have no idea where the US Congress ends and the money changers... er lobbyists, begin.

The basic government employee isn't in that top 5th, they're in the 3rd and 4th of those on average. $100K in DC is almost not a "living wage" as they call it. I have friends up there in the $450 category, friends above it, and friends in the sub $100K and in between. My lobbyist friends aren't in the lower group, but their staff is.

[UKHistory]

Gotcha.

As far as Congress and the lobbyists go...it is a revolving door. Staffers are recycled from the Hill to K Street more than NBA coaches and baseball managers. The real money is on K Street.

And you are correct though. This is a company town and government is where most make their money--as contractors, lobbyistis, etc.

We did have quite a few tech companies in the late 1990s before the dot busts.

Cost of housing is humbling. I am scared to death when I think of how some folks survive.

Hook me with those above $450,000 (just kidding).






History I really put that poorly. I meant just the highest end appointees, NGO heads, the big wig consultants and lobbyists, that group. I should have said "government related" b/c many aren't on the official payroll, but in my cynical view I have no idea where the US Congress ends and the money changers... er lobbyists, begin.

The basic government employee isn't in that top 5th, they're in the 3rd and 4th of those on average. $100K in DC is almost not a "living wage" as they call it. I have friends up there in the $450 category, friends above it, and friends in the sub $100K and in between. My lobbyist friends aren't in the lower group, but their staff is.