IT CANNOT be said that officials in Washington, DC lack confidence. True, the District has a jobless rate nearly a point higher than the national average, and over three points higher than neighbouring Virginia. But according to Vincent Orange, a city council member, the District is “at a point where we don’t need retailers”. Retailers, he claims, need the District.

The council seems eager to test this hypothesis. On July 10th it passed a bill requiring retailers with at least $1 billion in annual sales and stores of more than 75,000 square feet to pay their workers $12.50 an hour—over 50% more than the city’s minimum wage of $8.25, which is already a dollar above the federal rate.

The bill did not mention Walmart by name, but it might as well have. It does not apply to Walmart’s unionised rivals, such as Giant and Safeway. And it does not apply to existing stores for four years. That leaves only Walmart, which had planned to open six new stores in the District.

As it turns out, America’s largest retailer doesn’t need the District all that much. Citing the unforeseen costs imposed by the bill, Walmart says it will shelve plans for three stores and reconsider the other three, which are already under construction, if the bill is signed into law. (The mayor can still veto it.)

Walmart had tried to smooth its entry into the District by promising job-training programmes, transport projects and heaps of charitable giving. Other big companies can expect juicy incentives to move to Washington, but not Walmart. The Beast of Bentonville even refused to take a tax break to which it was entitled. It says its six stores would create 1,800 new jobs and generate millions in tax revenue.

Critics don’t buy such arguments. Some recoil at the idea of neighbourhoods dominated by big-box retailers and strip-mall storefronts. Others cite studies showing that Walmart stores displace local businesses and have a negative overall effect on employment and wages.

Other studies paint a rosier picture. The retailer’s wages are not great, but they are typical for the industry and would no doubt attract jobseekers. And the flip-side of low wages is Walmart’s “always low prices”. Cheap groceries benefit the poor most, since hard-up people spend proportionately more on food and other essentials. Some of the planned stores in the District would anchor development in struggling neighbourhoods. Even assuming the worst, there is very little business to be displaced in these areas.

District residents are already going over the border into Maryland and Virginia to get their Walmart fix (to the tune of $40m last year, says the retailer). But as overall sales in America decline, the company is looking for new growth in places where it has traditionally made little headway, such as union-friendly cities.

Predictably, it has had setbacks. Last year it lost a battle to open its first store in New York City. It has had better luck in Chicago: a wage bill similar to the District’s was vetoed by the then-mayor, Richard Daley, in 2006. As Vincent Gray, the District’s mayor, decides whether to follow suit, he might note that Walmart has just opened its ninth store in the Windy City.