Chicago Requires Large Retailers to Pay a "Living Wage"

[Godwynn]

CNN

The article says that any company with over $1 Billion annually in sales and with stores with 90,000+ sq. Ft. to pay a minimum of $10 per hour and an extra $3 per hour by mid 2010.

Mayor Daley, whose father ran the Chicago Democratic Machine, was against this proposal.

I need to move to Chicago and get a job as a greeter!

 

[ybbor]

ineveitable jibjab video link

 

[Ovulator]

move to chicago and get a job at one of these stores? not likely, target an wal-mart said they would not put stores into chicago because of this.

good work chicago, now your inner city won't have jobs and crime will rise further as people can't work/shop.

 

[Godwynn]

I love my Illinois but now I am re-thinking of moving to Chicago and shooting for New York City or Boston instead, and also our governors have sucked hardcore since Jim Edgar left office.

 

[RedWolf]

move to chicago and get a job at one of these stores? not likely, target an wal-mart said they would not put stores into chicago because of this.

good work chicago, now your inner city won't have jobs and crime will rise further as people can't work/shop.

Well thats the ridiculous part of the situation isn't it? Walmart would rather make NO profit then LESS profit.

This company makes money hand over fist - and they could do so by paying $7 an hour or $10 an hour.

If more jurisdictions (ie: the majority) would stand up to them in this fashion we'd all be better off - we'd have better jobs, less people using our social safety nets, and stronger economies. Yes, Walmart would make LESS profit but still would be wildly successful. They may not like it... but it would become the paradigm for selling goods to North American consumers in big box stores.

They could choose to "leave it" if they wanted.. but I suspect they would not. Why would you choose NO profit over LESS profit in the North American market place? (considering also that they've failed to make major inroads anywhere else in the world).

 

[tomsnowman123]

This is great news indeed. For too long minimum wage has fallen behind inflation (thank goodness for the increase later this year). Now some people can have wages that will prevent them from falling below the poverty level. Hopefully we are that much closer to a nation wide living wage around $12.50 and hour.

 

[Godwynn]

They could choose to "leave it" if they wanted.. but I suspect they would not. Why would you choose NO profit over LESS profit in the North American market place? (considering also that they've failed to make major inroads anywhere else in the world).

I believe they are moving their stores or building new ones in the suburbs. And not building their new one in Chicago's South Side, where the jobs are definently needed.

 

[RedWolf]

I believe they are moving their stores or building new ones in the suburbs. And not building their new one in Chicago's South Side, where the jobs are definently needed.

I understand...

But my point was that if ALL jurisdictions took this route - and stood as one in the interests of better wages, Walmart would be able to "move to the suburbs" as they would have similair policies. It would become the defacto price of running a multi-billion dollar big box store corporation in the World's wealthiest nation (by this I mean North America).

 

[Stile]

But, RedWolf, it's unnecessary government intrusion. The average wage in the Chicago area Walmarts is already $11 according to the article. The majority is already standing up individually by refusing to work for less. I also dislike how it only targets select stores. Maryland did a similar thing where they passed a law concerning health insurance with stipulations such that Walmart would be the only retailer that the law applied to. Just seems unfair.

 

[Spartan117]

there are walmarts all over the outskirts of chicago

even some places right across the street but none in chicago

i read in newspaper 25,000 people applied to this jobs at a new walamrt opening, that is a huge amount of people

 

[Elrohir]

Why don't they just tie the minimum wage to inflation? That way no one, on either side, get's to complain about how high or low it is, as it will effectively be the same as it's always been.

 

[Spartan117]

the city government did not want a large retial store to bankrupt the smaller businesses in those areas...although this sounds a lot like bribes, in my opinion...

 

[RedWolf]

But, RedWolf, it's unnecessary government intrusion. The average wage in the Chicago area Walmarts is already $11 according to the article. The majority is already standing up individually by refusing to work for less. I also dislike how it only targets select stores. Maryland did a similar thing where they passed a law concerning health insurance with stipulations such that Walmart would be the only retailer that the law applied to. Just seems unfair.

Honestly - I have no problem with "government intrusion" when it's the interest of improving working conditions. Without these "intrusions" men would still be dieing regulalrly in unsafe factories etc.

Also if the wages are already what you say then who cares? Walmart has nothing to worry about.

 

[Godwynn]

But my point was that if ALL jurisdictions took this route

Trust me, I understand this, and if I could do this, I would make all jurisdictions do this.

But the problem with this is other districts will not enforce this, bringing more jobs to their area at the expense of those that would pull a stunt like Chicago did.

 

[warpus]

move to chicago and get a job at one of these stores? not likely, target an wal-mart said they would not put stores into chicago because of this.

good work chicago, now your inner city won't have jobs and crime will rise further as people can't work/shop.

If there is demand for that type of store in the area, and Walmart/Kmart/etc. aren't willing to open shop there, then another cometitor will move in to get a piece of the action.

Capitalism in action.

 

[Godwynn]

The article also says that one the West Side of Chicago the lowest it pays is $7.25/hour.

 

[RedWolf]

Trust me, I understand this, and if I could do this, I would make all jurisdictions do this.

But the problem with this is other districts will not enforce this, bringing more jobs to their area at the expense of those that would pull a stunt like Chicago did.

Fair enough - I do understand your point and respect it... I guess for me it's about "line in the sand"... Somebody has to make a stand to try to better the conditions of the working poor... The alternative is a "race to the bottom" which benefits nobody (besides the absolute wealthiest)

 

[Stile]

Honestly - I have no problem with "government intrusion" when it's the interest of improving working conditions. Without these "intrusions" men would still be dieing regulalrly in unsafe factories etc.

Also if the wages are already what you say then who cares? Walmart has nothing to worry about.

True, but I said unnecessary ones. The lowest wage they say is $7.25 in their newest store. Good bye, teenagers and elderly. You are now unemployable.

 

[Stile]

If there is demand for that type of store in the area, and Walmart/Kmart/etc. aren't willing to open shop there, then another cometitor will move in to get a piece of the action.

Capitalism in action.

But will the law apply to the competitor? Not necessarily.

 

[Elrohir]

True, but I said unnecessary ones. The lowest wage they say is $7.25 in their newest store. Good bye, teenagers and elderly. You are now unemployable.

It's a miserly $5.25 here in Virginia. The Chicagoans should count their blessings.