Posted on 07/14/2006 4:02:49 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
If discount retailers pull out of the Chicago market, the consumers of Chicago will wind up paying hundreds of dollars in excess costs for every dollar of benefit that may have accrued to any of these low-wage employees. Even by the standards of Liberals, 0.1% to 1.0% of the money getting to where it is supposed to be is a poor investment.
This is emotionalism disguised as politics. If this goes through, some outfit will come along and build to the rule with stores of 89,999 square feet, pay the employees whatever they want, and use the non-competitive market to screw the consumer.
This is stupid, even for Democrats.
Yep, and crazy Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) is heir to the Dayton-Hudson fortune. Between that and kicking out the Salvation Army, I haven't shopped there in two years and never will again. To hell with them and the idiots running Chicago. Bravo to Wal-Mart for sticking it in their eye, too.
Chicago aldermen(and women): the closest you can come to being brain dead without a flat line.
Personally I can't see how people are able to rent an apt, buy food, pay for utilities if they are earning $8 and hour
which probably nets about $6 and hour, however earning say $10 an hour would net about $8.00 per hr. $6 x 40 hours is $240 a week, under $1,000 a month, apartments are about $400 to $800 a month which than places the burden on the taxpayer as the wage earner is than able to receive welfare benefits, section 8 housing, etc. So someone explain to me why this is a benefit to the average taxpayer to applaud big box employers not having to pay little more than minimum wage? Wages are state specific, so someone in Chicago may get $8, someone in Texas may receive $6 etc.
The minimum wage battle equates to either the big box employer pays a living wage OR the taxpayer is subsidizing the big box low-wage earners. What am I missing?
That's been the rub for me, the low-wage earner welfare, section 8 recepients.
"The small businesses may be laughing now....eventually the socialists will come for them too."
I would have titled the article, "How to make Chicago the new Detroit!"
I don't shop at Target since they banned the Salvation Army bell ringers at Christmas. I believe they also financially support the gay agenda.
Having said that, good for them for standing up to the socialists in Chicago.
This "living wage" crap on "big-boxes" is just the beginning. Soon, it will apply to all retailers, who will drastically reduce employees, puting many people out of work.
And who is to say what a LW is?
Socialists are either the dumbest people on the planet, or they are the biggest crooks. Either way, they do a disservice to the people they claim to represent.
Marshall Fields owned Target for only a few years and they dumped them last year. Earlier this year Macy's acquired Marshall Fields and the conversion process/name change should be complete by years end.
I'm not in favor of it. I'm just saying that they aren't going to close shop in Chicago over this. At worst, they will raise their prices.
:)
You are missing a clue about economics. Why $10 why not $20? then they would be much more comfortable. How about $30? Stores don't operate on large margins and don't have printing presses. Your calculations leave out the only important factor. Can the company survive those wages or will they then have to get rid of X number of employees and not build X number of stores.
I am not even getting into the whole discussion of what they actually produce. Go out and read some Walter Williams/Thomas Sowell columns on the subject. You need to educate yourself on basic economic principles. I hope you don't run a business.
Right From The LIBROID'S Mouth! ! !
"Our largest employer in the 34th Ward is the Police Department. The second-largest for us would be Jewel. We have no other resources," Austin said.
This alderman has just admitted that in her district there are no productive people, only welfare clients living on transfer payments.
Move out the Police Department when the stores leave. Those who have degenerated to the abovementioned level described by their own alderman deserve what that for which they have diligently voted for decades.
because it would be "DEVASTATING".
At least that's what the Reps from Target said quite a few times in the article.
As I said as a taxpayer I don't want to have to pay for these low wage earners receiving section 8 and welfare benefits so I see no need for the insults in answer to what I posted.
Exactly, however my point is that I look at all this from the standpoint of a taxpayer and what logic dictates since as another poster indicated I don't have a MBA in accounting.
Work 2 jobs, live with a roommate, etc. I did it when I was 19-20 and making only $7/hr. I also worked every overtime shift I could get and did odds and ends anywhere I could. I was prepared to work a second job, if needed as well.
In addition to the minimum wage, the level of bribes and harrassment from building, zoning, health and other departments has to be considered.
I did a study in the early 60's on why manufacturing companies left the city. The decision was more emotional than financial. The owners of the factories were just tired of Ward Committeemen and others constantly pressuring the factory owners to buy tickets to some dinner and an AD in the AD BOOK. That cost of doing business was supposed to buy protection. But instead it became a list for building and zoning inspectors to milk ... a list of who was an easy mark.
The minimum wage battle equates to either the big box employer pays a living wage OR the taxpayer is subsidizing the big box low-wage earners. What am I missing?
-------
Ever heard the term "ROOM_MATE" ?
What happened to the idea of pooling together , working hard , and moving ahead.
It seems like everyone thinks that they are suppose to START with a big house a new car and all the goodies.
shhheeeesh
stopem, don't get bent. Too many here worship at the altar of free market.
Except when the shoe is on the other foot and "Economics 101" says if not enough workers are willing to take a job at a certain wage, then instead of having to pay more, which again is Econ 101, it is perfectly acceptable to hire illegals.
It's Corporate America's God Given Right to profit. Taxpayers be damned.
Excellent, you used good old conservative logic and didn't leech off taxpayers to subsidize your low wages. Good job!
However how mnay of the low-wage, lib earners use that mentality?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.