Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

reverbandwhiskey

Chicago Forces Walmart/Target/Home Depot to raise wages

54 posts in this topic


I doubt it could be done in Charlotte. I don't think the unions (if there even are any here) have any sort of pull whatsoever to lobby such an effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it could be done in Charlotte. I don't think the unions (if there even are any here) have any sort of pull whatsoever to lobby such an effort.

I think you're right. I doubt that it could get done here. Oh how I wish they could.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be wonderful I agree. I don't see it happening much of anywhere in the South though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wal Mart doesn't allow its employees to unionize. I think the step that Chicago is taking moves in the right direction. New York City passed a law forcing "big box" retailers to provide health insurance to all of their employees and thankfully the city has been able to keep Wal Mart out up to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^yeah, Walmart was all set to open a location in the Rego Park neighborhood of Queens, I believe at the site of the old Alexander's department store location which has been sitting empty for 15 years. Luckily, they were soundly swatted away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the world is this a good thing and why should the Govt. be in any sort of business telling a company what they have to pay? This is Govt intrustion in the worst way.

Why $10.00? Why not $20.00? Fact is, this will kill jobs and force Wal-Mart as well as Target to move out of the city.

Govt should never tell a business how much they have to pay an employee.

Bottom line is that many people just can't stand success.

Concerning Unions, they are outdated and no longer needed in the United States but that is a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Red. I don't see how this helps the workers, most likley it will put them out of a job when the retailers close up shop. But this is not a done deal yet. Mayor is against it and may veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Won't happen in Charlotte. Charlotte is too business-friendly.

Plus only in a more leftist town such as Chicago could government get away with targeting a company that's not favored by left-wing activists and then passing a law targeting that company and trying to micro-manage how it does business.

I think it's a moral outrage that the minimum wage is so low, but it needs to be raised for ALL employers, not just for companies that aren't liked by left-wing activists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mallguy, I agree with most of your post except:

I think it's a moral outrage that the minimum wage is so low, but it needs to be raised for ALL employers, not just for companies that aren't liked by left-wing activists.

I do think that it should be the same for ALL employers however I do not feel that the Govt. should be in the business telling companies what they must pay someone. In today's day and age, a min. wage is not needed at all as companies would go out of business as they would not be able to compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called shifting the burden back to the private sector.....because people working at Wal-Mart can't afford housing that isn't subsidized? How is it subsidized? By the tax payers....now at least these employee's housing expenses will be subsidized by Wal-Mart customers.

Everyone wants the government from messing with private business, but when businesses refuse to provide pay people enough to qualify for the cities worst non-subsidized apartments, what's the solution?

Just for fun, since I'm in the business of securitizing low-income housing tax credits, which gives me a great resource of wealth, I looked up Chicago, and what $7.25 per hour will afford. Apartment affordability is measured at 3 times the gross income......assuming Wal-Mart was willing to hire someone for 40 hour weeks, a person would be making $15,000 per year or $1,250 per month.....this means that a Wal-Mart employee could afford a $417/month apartment.

Now, looking at Fair Market Rents in Chicago, the 2006 HUD limit is $801 per month for a satisfactory 1 bedroom unit.....oops, there is a big disparity.....you know how this person affords to live......GOVERNMENT HOUSING SUDSIDY!!!!

Your answer could be not to subsidize people's housing and let them be homeless.....sure....until we need to hire more police and build more jails for the rising crime rate....so please explains again why making a company be responsible for their actions is a bad thing?

EDIT....After digging further....a person making $7.25 in Chicago would be making less than 30% of AMI threshold of $15,800, which means they would qualify for public housing, otherwise known as "The Projects"....sweet deal, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North Carolina recently passed approval for a statewide raise in the minimum wage. Most employers see the inherent value of assuring that their workers are able to make a living wage. A few don't. Hence, the need for gvt involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. One reason I'm in favor of a minimum wage (as a moderately conservative Republican) is that people need to be paid enough (both in cash and with benefits) so that they can more or less try cover their own needs (e.g., health care, education, etc.) without relying on taxpayers to do so.

An argument has been made that X% of Wal-Mart employees are paid so little that they have to rely on government-sponsored health care and obtain other government benefits. Wal-Mart (and other employers) should be paying those costs via wages, salaries and benefits, not me.

Plus, if there is no minimum wage, there are plenty of potentially undocumented immigrants in other countries who would gladly work for $2 per hour, sticking me and other taxpayers with their health, education, etc. costs.

The worst thing, though, is for government to target a specific company it doesn't like and try to micro-manage it. Today Wal-Mart, tomorrow which other companies? Perhaps leftists will try to replace it with GUM, the Soviet Union's favorite department store?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone wants the government from messing with private business, but when businesses refuse to provide pay people enough to qualify for the cities worst non-subsidized apartments, what's the solution?

The solution is Govt stays out of it, Wal-Mart decides to pay just $2.00 an hour, K-Mart counters with paying their employees $6.00 an hour and Wal-Mart MUST raise in order to compete in the free market place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is Govt stays out of it, Wal-Mart decides to pay just $2.00 an hour, K-Mart counters with paying their employees $6.00 an hour and Wal-Mart MUST raise in order to compete in the free market place.

But what if there are enough potential undocumented immigrants who would be willing to work for $2/hr that Wal-Mart could get away with that (assuming its business would come out ahead, even with other adverse effects factored in)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well Red and Loan, the Government is never going to stay out of it. I would rather force an employer to pay a living wage than have my tax dollars subsidize their low wages through welfare, medicaid, housing credits, etc.

As to your arguyments about it forcing the businesses to close up, I would point you to Costco. They pay a living wage and is more profitable per sq foot.

I also think that a community should have the right to determine what businesses operate inside their nighrborhood. Chicago residents decided that they don't want big box stores unless they pay a living wage. I fail to see why conservatives would hate that. I see it as a natural extension of zoning laws.

I would also like to point out that by raising wages they are improving the local economy by having more of the money spent in the stores recirculated within the community though the employees' increased spending power. This is better than having more of the profits sent back to Bentonville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is Govt stays out of it, Wal-Mart decides to pay just $2.00 an hour, K-Mart counters with paying their employees $6.00 an hour and Wal-Mart MUST raise in order to compete in the free market place.

Why must Wal-Mart raise their pay to match K-Mart? If the demand for jobs is greater than the supply, I would argue the opposite affect will occur, and Wal-Mart advocates love to point out examples like the recent store opening here that had 1,200 people apply for 300 positions.

But hey, I get it, Wal-Mart supporters prefer all taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart wages so you can buy low-quality cheap crap to fill up an oversized house.....I prefer all taxpayers to subsidize cultural amenities, so I guess it evens out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is Govt has no right telling a business what they should pay thier employees. The living wage argument is crap. Capitalism is what has made this country so great and prosperous. However, if a company wants to pay a living wage, more power to them but the Govt. should never be forcing them to.

But what if there are enough potential undocumented immigrants who would be willing to work for $2/hr that Wal-Mart could get away with that (assuming its business would come out ahead, even with other adverse effects factored in)?
That is a strawman argument and another argument all together. If a company is hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS (let's call them what they are and drop all this undocumented nonsense), they should be shut down.

Why must Wal-Mart raise their pay to match K-Mart? If the demand for jobs is greater than the supply, I would argue the opposite affect will occur, and Wal-Mart advocates love to point out examples like the recent store opening here that had 1,200 people apply for 300 positions.

Wal-Mart does not have to do anything however they will go out of business as they woudl not have enough employees. Also, what is wrong with the 1200 example except that it makes all your arguments null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that I agree there is huge demand for the jobs, and that huge demand would probably allow them to pay $2.00/hour....where we differ is that I don't feel my tax dollars should subsidize the social problems this causes.

I'm sure there are intellectual arguments against paying a living wage, but saying its crap and that capitalism made this country great, I invite you to take a trip to Somalia if you want to see pure capitalism played out.

Hey.....I'm a moderate republican....but even as such, I recognize that there needs to be certain limitations enacted, ortherwise we all pay more in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but even as such, I recognize that there needs to be certain limitations enacted, ortherwise we all pay more in the end.

Who decided what is fair then? Why not $20.00 an hour? Why not just make it a federal law that everyone in the country should make $100,000 a year?

Much of what you guys are saying has been tried before - back in the 70's and during the great depression and it always failed (quite miserably I might add).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: illegal aliens willing to work for $2 per hour- Wal-Mart's janitorial service providers have been raided for hiring illegal aliens, but our current government doesn't really do much about those types of incidents. Plus, there are plenty of people in other countries willing to do "the jobs that Americans won't do" for subpar wages, and are willing to do what it takes to get those jobs, so there are plenty of legal immigrants willing to work for wages that would be chump change as well.

The argument, in my view, is about what in the legal profession is called "negative externalities"- someone trying to unjustly impose costs on others. The classic case of this is a factory dumping harmful and costly pollution on a neighborhood. Why should I have to cough up my hard-earned money to pay more taxes just because Wal-Mart (and lots of others) succeed in paying wages that are so low that employees have to live off the public dime as well?

Paying decent minimum wages was done before- in the '60s and early '70s- and is currently done in some places such as Ireland, which has low taxes, high growth, etc. It's not socialism to support that; I do and I'm a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this quote from Wal-Mart:

“It means that Chicago is closed to business.”

If this stands up, watch for other retailers to high tail it out of Chicago, leave many out of a job and deprive the citizens of what they want: cheaper prices at nearby stores.

What it will do is exactly what is happening in the Indian Land area of Lancaster County. Many businesses, tired of paying so much in taxes in Mecklenburg county, are moving out of the county and the state to Lancaster County. The areas outside of Chicago will see a great increase in revenues.

Good. I hope this happens. Politicians should not be permitted to target one business that they don't like and micro-manage it. Just as Western companies pulled out of the USSR after the October Revolution, hopefully companies will also pull out of unfriendly locations in the US. Serves them right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of what you guys are saying has been tried before - back in the 70's and during the great depression and it always failed (quite miserably I might add).

Well no. The great depression was caused by lack of any government regulation on how business is regulated. It was capitalism run amok and an example of how the government needs to regulate business lest the people get screwed. And there were no problems that I remember in the 70s caused by minimum wage laws. In fact the disparity of wealth was much less then and so were the problems that result from it.

Walmart's business model could not exist without government subsidies in the highway transportation system, government policies that encourage cheap oil and automobile travel, subsidies that maintain the global trade system, ports and everything else needed which allows them to move goods, and government policies that lets them bring in low cost junk from 3rd world countries. (many of them with repressive governments) Walmart owes the government big time for making its business model possible. If it were really just the free market, Walmart would have to pay a lot more for how it operates, but it is the best opportunist out there and knows now to take advantage of what our goverment allows.

Given that government makes Walmart possible, then I am sure your don't have any problem with the fact the people of Chicago have elected a local government that has decided to put regulations on what Walmart can do. (just like the regulations above) These regulations dictate how much Walmart must provide in benefits to its employees. If Walmart doesn't like it then they can leave. I don't see where you could have an argument with that. If Walmart is going to benefit from government subsidies and regulation, then I have no problem with government regulation which makes them provide a living wage to their employees. After all its the taxes these people pay which makes Walmart's business model possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Business owners and employees, consider yourself warned: if your company isn't admired by various groups who obtain legislative power, they will micromanage you and your company's finances and practices to the benefit of your competitors.

In many European countries, for example, chain stores are barred from having sales except during certain periods, since having sales could hurt mom and pop businesses. Will we also now see this kind of garbage in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.