Chicago Requires Large Retailers to Pay a "Living Wage"

[amadeus]

Why should entry-level employees receive payment equal to that of someone that has skilled labor or somebody with a long-term committment to the company?

Does anyone understand why retail pays the money that it does? Out of the entire United States, how many people are qualified to be a scientist, a doctor, or an architect? A small percentage.

But how many people can work at Wal-Mart? Just about anybody. The supply of availible retail clerks is high, so there's no need to create new incentives for employees to join Wal-Mart.

 

[downtown]

'specially when all the other stores close when wal-mart enters. They own all the jobs, so you pretty much have to take what they give you

 

[Underseer]

Why should entry-level employees receive payment equal to that of someone that has skilled labor or somebody with a long-term committment to the company?

Straw man logical fallacy (you're a conservative, aren't you?). No one has suggested that entry-level employees make the same money as someone who has been there for years.

Does anyone understand why retail pays the money that it does? Out of the entire United States, how many people are qualified to be a scientist, a doctor, or an architect? A small percentage.

We're not talking about the wages retail outlets pay. We're talking about the wages certain big-box stores pay, which is considerably lower than what the other retailers are paying, and that's what creates the problem. I reiterate: when Wal-Mart comes into town, the number of people on welfare goes up. Why should my tax dollars get spent on those extra welfare cases just to pad the bottom line of a giant, soulless corporation?

But how many people can work at Wal-Mart? Just about anybody. The supply of availible retail clerks is high, so there's no need to create new incentives for employees to join Wal-Mart.

Yes, the supply of available retail clerks is quite high thanks to this stellar Republican economy.

 

[Leatherneck]

Why should entry-level employees receive payment equal to that of someone that has skilled labor or somebody with a long-term committment to the company?

Does anyone understand why retail pays the money that it does? Out of the entire United States, how many people are qualified to be a scientist, a doctor, or an architect? A small percentage.

But how many people can work at Wal-Mart? Just about anybody. The supply of availible retail clerks is high, so there's no need to create new incentives for employees to join Wal-Mart.

Well yes retail jobs are not going to pay much, but one of the reasons I stopped going to Wal-Mart was the overall average IQ of the worker seemed to be just a hair above ********. (Not all but a lot of them) No one knew anything or it wasn't there department. That's what you get when you pay crappy wages.

Note: If you pay peanuts you're going to get monkey's.

I'd rather go to a speciality store where I ask a question like do you have something like a 2 way swith or a 3 way switch and they know what I'm talking about and CAN LOCATE IT. Try that at Wal-Mart and you'll get this blank stare while they fiddle with their tongue stud and say something like ... "Did you look in Lawn and Garden dude?" No dude I didn't because that's not where they'd be. So you pay crappy wages you're going to get crappy employees, it goes hand in hand.

 

[amadeus]

Straw man logical fallacy (you're a conservative, aren't you?). No one has suggested that entry-level employees make the same money as someone who has been there for years.

No, but that's what your ultimate goal is, to enact legislation that would pay entry-level employees beyond the value of their labor.

We're not talking about the wages retail outlets pay. We're talking about the wages certain big-box stores pay, which is considerably lower than what the other retailers are paying, and that's what creates the problem. I reiterate: when Wal-Mart comes into town, the number of people on welfare goes up. Why should my tax dollars get spent on those extra welfare cases just to pad the bottom line of a giant, soulless corporation?

The problem then lies with your town, for one of two reasons.

First is that all of the town's consumers are shopping at Wal-Mart, because it represents the best value for them.

The second may be that your town is in a dependency cycle of having everything handed to them, either from their employer or from the government.

I also take issue with the phrase "soulless corporation," which is generally a neo-Marxist term to tug at the heart strings; I'm not stupid enough to fall for it. Good economic decisions are made on reason, not emotion.

Yes, the supply of available retail clerks is quite high thanks to this stellar Republican economy.

No, it's because that kind of labor is simply easier to come by. Regardless of any U.S. administration, there will always be a lot more people open to this kind of work than top-level positions.

 

[Leatherneck]

I reiterate: when Wal-Mart comes into town, the number of people on welfare goes up. Why should my tax dollars get spent on those extra welfare cases just to pad the bottom line of a giant, soulless corporation?


Yes, the supply of available retail clerks is quite high thanks to this stellar Republican economy.

You do know that, that is a conservitive view point, I should know I'm one. It's the left wing liberals (Democrates) that believes in entitlements. i.e. welfare, food stamps, etc ...

Don't fret it's ok, you'll like it over here on the dark side.

 

[amadeus]

Well yes retail jobs are not going to pay much, but one of the reasons I stopped going to Wal-Mart was the overall average IQ of the worker seemed to be just a hair above ********. (Not all but a lot of them) No one knew anything or it wasn't there department. That's what you get when you pay crappy wages.

That's a matter of personal preference and you are of course welcome to shop wherever you like.

I, on the other hand, am satisfied with the competence of Wal-Mart's staff, because I don't expect them to know where the socket wrenches are. If I need one, I'll just go look for it.

 

[Leatherneck]

That's a matter of personal preference and you are of course welcome to shop wherever you like.

I, on the other hand, am satisfied with the competence of Wal-Mart's staff, because I don't expect them to know where the socket wrenches are. If I need one, I'll just go look for it.

I'm a get in, get out shopper .. I often call my mom and pop stores and have the order ready to go, placed on account. Wal-Mart is not a get in get out store. I also like to deal with people that know their product, but if you're happy being on your own, it's your choice. I'm not condemning or judging it, I perfer small business to the big box store.

 

[Whomp]

The Wal Mart love/hate relationship.
The love
We love them as consumers for their low prices. We love the company
because they are at least partly responsible for the low rate of U.S. inflation. A McKinsey & Co. study concluded that about 12% of the economy's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s could be traced to Wal-Mart alone.
The hate
Wal Mart offers the greatest pipeline for non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market. Wal-Mart imports 10% of all America's total imports from China.

BTW What happened to Wal-Mart's motto of "Buy American"?

Bankrupting companies like Vlasic.

But what burns me the most is my distaste for paying taxes. I loathe what I pay in taxes. In California, uninsured Wal-Mart employees were costing the state $32 million a year in taxpayer funds.

That I simply can't take.

 

[amadeus]

I wasn't judging you either, I was just giving you my own reasons for shopping at Wal-Mart as opposed to smaller stores.

 

[Shylock]

Yes, the supply of available retail clerks is quite high thanks to this stellar Republican economy.

And once we get a Democrat in office everyone will suddenly acquire doctorates.

 

[MobBoss]

The Wal Mart love/hate relationship.
The love
We love them as consumers for their low prices. We love the company
because they are at least partly responsible for the low rate of U.S. inflation. A McKinsey & Co. study concluded that about 12% of the economy's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s could be traced to Wal-Mart alone.
The hate
Wal Mart offers the greatest pipeline for non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market. Wal-Mart imports 10% of all America's total imports from China.

BTW What happened to Wal-Mart's motto of "Buy American"?

Bankrupting companies like Vlasic.

But what burns me the most is my distaste for paying taxes. I loathe what I pay in taxes. In California, uninsured Wal-Mart employees were costing the state $32 million a year in taxpayer funds.

That I simply can't take.

Heh, if you loath taxes that much you have a far wider problem than just Wal-Mart employees to complain about. How do you feel about illegal aliens getting health care?

Anyway, most mom and pop stores dont offer their employees health benefits either, so, if Wal-Mart didnt even exist, I dont think your tax burden would necessarily be any lighter.

Btw, I do agree with the love/hate sentiments.

 

[Leatherneck]

BTW What happened to Wal-Mart's motto of "Buy American"?

Sam Walton died, the low prices and buy American went out the window, but it was to late to many were Wal-Junkies. And sold themselve that Wal-Mart really does have the lowest price ... I stick to my story, shop around.

EDIT: I'm not sure your Love/Hate is assigned correctly ...
Reason being is it good for one company to have that strong of an impact on the largest economy in the world? But it is good that they have that kind of impact on the fastest growing economy in the world. They could have a lot of leverage over China. If I was a country I wouldn't want 10% of my GDP being provided by one company. Seems it put to many chips in Wal-Marts basket. They keeping growing and takig over everything the way they are, they might very well be the ATT of the 21st century.

 

[Whomp]

Heh, if you loath taxes that much you have a far wider problem than just Wal-Mart employees to complain about. How do you feel about illegal aliens getting health care?

Anyway, most mom and pop stores dont offer their employees health benefits either, so, if Wal-Mart didnt even exist, I dont think your tax burden would necessarily be any lighter.

Btw, I do agree with the love/hate sentiments.

Mom and pop are piling right back into the local economy not Arkansas. Read some of my links.
See Wal-Mart is playing the role of Adam Smith's invisible hand. Not consciously, not directly, but inevitably.

On the issue of illegals I have a bigger problem with jobs moving.

Take Master Lock as an example. They made locks in Milwaukee for 75 years. Now the remaining employees in Milwaukee supply the 800 or so factory workers in Nogales....Mexico not U.S. and the Milwaukee employees of Master Lock who shopped at Wal-Mart to save money helped that hand shove their own jobs right to Nogales. More taxes. Remember I'm a fiscal conservative. I hate taxes.

I think Wal-Mart has also lulled shoppers into ignoring the difference between the price of something and the cost.


.

 

[BCLG100]

I agree with whomp, as his name is whomp and therefore can't be wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

If you take the world's GNP and divide it by the number of people in it, then assume 8 hour work days, 5 days a week and 50 weeks a year, everybody would get about $5.50 an hour.

So, in the very long run, ten bucks an hour is unworkable. Well, unworkable from the standpoint of equal distribution of wealth, anyway.

 

[Whomp]

I agree with whomp, as his name is whomp and therefore can't be wrong.

Wow. A young wisearse Brit agreeing with me.
Have a few drinks tonight smarty pants?

 

[BCLG100]

Wow. A young wisearse Brit agreeing with me.
Have a few drinks tonight smarty pants?

Well i suport the other side of the argument now, i agree on the walmart issue that is the opposite to what you say and therefore while saying you can never be wrong previously i now believe that you can be wrong and therefore in this case are so wrong. So long story short, the other side is now right because your name is something to be disclosed at a later date and therefore wrong

 

[downtown]

Alright. I read this whole thread, and I'm getting ready to give my .02. Personally, I dunno if this is "economically correct" or anything, its just what I've noticed in my area of the country.

My county's major employers used to be manufacturing jobs. We had an aluminum plant, the Longaburger basket HQ, and a few other plants. There were skilled labor jobs as well (a private university/branch of a huge public one, chemical labs, a hospital), but not many were college educated, so many found a living building things.

The plants moved to mexico or out of state, and the guy who ran Longaburger died, and his daughter sucked at running the company. Suddenly, jobs ran out, and big retail (Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, etc), became major employers.

This created somewhat of a cycle of dependency. Even if they want to, families can't "pay extra" for things like personal service, because they dont have the money. With fuel being expensive, Wal-Mart (or Target) are often the only choices for certain products. Also, salaries for many are low....because they have to work in big retail.

Thus, the town and the state have to fit the bill for services. With such a glut of labor, Big Retail doesnt bother to hire anybody full time. They also try to only hire those who wont be able to work elsewhere. (Me and several of my friends applied to Wal-Mart and Target looking for summer work. We all have at least 45 university credit hours, and Eagle Scout awards. No job. They hired two high school dropouts for part time instead.)

Is big retail partly to blame for an cycle of low wages? If its one of the bigger employers, and families lack the money needed to move out, I think they have a responsibility to pick up some of the slack as far as services are concerned, so the towns and state can have money for things like infrastructure, jobs, or education.

 

[Leatherneck]

I think they have a responsibility to pick up some of the slack as far as services are concerned, so the towns and state can have money for things like infrastructure, jobs, or education.

Oh but Wal-Mart gives back to the community read their propaganda ... aah I mean press releases. They gave back almost $10,000 to our community last year. $10,000.00 big ones ... the week before x-Mas alone the same store reported over $8,000,000.00 in sales for that one week alone. Over $250 million on the year and we got $10K ... wouldn't even buy a quarter of a police cruser. Were will we spend it all.