Walmart San Diego – Labor’s Flawed Logic

B-Daddy B-Daddy 5 Comments


Lorena Gonzales makes some absurd arguments in today’s U-T editorial section on the law to block WalMart from setting up “big boxes” that sell groceries without a special economic impact analysis that no other business is subject to. Here is the core of her argument, Superstores have unknown and potentially economic impact, so they should be required to submit to a special analysis before being approved. News flash, all new businesses have an unknown economic impact. If they didn’t then the central planning of the former Soviet Union would have made it the richest nation on the planet. Further, even if an analysis is performed, it is unlikely to predict the true effects of any new business. After scaremongering and passing along numerous lies regarding Walmart, she accuses the business of “bullying” the City Council with its petition drive. Bullying? Really? Exercising constitutional rights when being subjugated by local government is bullying? Remember this, which also applies to local government:

Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a rebuttal by W. Erik Bruvold, Big-box ordinance unfairly targets one retailer, on the opposite side of the paper. While good, it doesn’t really capture my outrage. So here are my rebuttal points:

  1. 1. There is already a planning process. Use it. Stop targeting a business that competes with union shop grocers.
  2. 2. New business is disruptive, so what? Henry Ford didn’t submit an impact analysis on the carriage industry.
  3. 3. Lot’s of businesses thrive near Walmarts.
  4. 4. Walmart provides wages and benefits that are usually better than the small businesses they supposedly supplant. Like it or not, and I don’t, California’s minimum wage laws guarantee this.
  5. 5. People want to pay less for groceries. Poor people need to pay less for groceries. Why don’t you care about the poor?
  6. 6. Why are labor unions leading the charge against Walmart if the negative impact is allegedly against small businesses, who usually lack union shops, by the way.
  7. 7. An economic analysis is a ban. Look at the experience in Los Angeles. Quit obfuscating.
  8. 8. Labor is going to get thumped again if this goes to a vote, leaving them with less money to make my life more miserable.

I look forward to seeing how the City Council handles this issue.

Cross posted to The Liberator Today.


Comments 5

  1. I can’t wait to see if Walmart’s petition signature gathering effort succeeded. If so, the Council is going to have to make a really difficult (see embarrassing) choice for the majority.

  2. Excellent write-up, B-Daddy. You touched on many points that anger me as well. Many thanks.

    Bill, not to worry. Wal-Mart’s referendum WILL qualify — and by a large margin. Then the fun begins.

    Will one of the “gang of four” labor union sycophants break ranks and vote with the public that they supposedly represent? Or will we have to hold that needless, costly special election — taking the anti-Wal-Mart labor bosses and their flunkies out behind the barn for a proper thrashing?

    If such a needless election helps us to later get rid of Marti Emerald and perhaps another labor union cc representative, it will all be worth it. True city reform might then be possible.

    That election cost could well turn out to be the best money the city ever wasted.

    I hold with my earlier prediction: One or more of the union-backed city council members will see the light and vote to rescind the big box ban ordinance — and one vote is all that is needed. I doubt these union puppets want another “Prop D” disaster.

  3. Post
  4. I thought in the 500 words I was given I hit your points 2 and 3 and 7. Indeed, they were the main themes. Point 4 and 5 requires a long perusal through “he said/she said” econometric literature. Point 4 is actually 2 points and the first clause hasn’t really been studied to any great extent – in large part because understanding benefit levels in sole proprietor small retail businesses has almost NO good data.

    Plus, the anti-union rhetoric is preaching to the choir. I hoped to hit the unconvinced middle.

    Anyway, glad you liked it enough to give it a grudging nod.

  5. Post

    Erik, no criticism of your piece was intended. My admittedly emotional response was intended to give voice to my outrage. Your piece was far better, I hoped to be a little outrageous myself to capture a mood.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.