Jump to content

Chicago Forces Walmart/Target/Home Depot to raise wages


reverbandwhiskey

Recommended Posts

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?

Yet somehow, the average European enjoys a much higher standard of living and longer lifespan than the average American. They work less and have more. The big difference is they manage to spread the wealth amongst all of their citizens unlike here in the USA where 10% own 90% of all of the wealth. BTW, Japan has the same restrictions, and same for standard of living of living and lifespan there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Red,

How is it a strawman argument? You said that government shouldn't tell a business how much it should pay someone, so why should the government then tell them who they can hire? You love to claim to know what the Government can and cannot do. Minimum wage laws have been upheld by Judicial review over 25 times. I would sare say that affirms that the government DOES have the right to dictate wages.

The U.S. has NEVER had free market capitalism. We have had protectionist tariffs and import taxes for hundreds of years now in order to protect the American worker.

Who are you to say that a living wage "is crap"?? Several Nobel Prize winning economists would disagree with you. Costco also disagrees. They are more profitable while at the same time paying a much higher wage.

"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.

"

Oh no! Now those communities will have to rely on local businesses that pay higher wages with better benefits. :yahoo:

Well those businesses seem to have no problem helping to put their employees on government welfare, so I don't see why they shouldn't be subjected to more government regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet somehow, the average European enjoys a much higher standard of living and longer lifespan than the average American. They work less and have more. The big difference is they manage to spread the wealth amongst all of their citizens unlike here in the USA where 10% own 90% of all of the wealth. BTW, Japan has the same restrictions, and same for standard of living of living and lifespan there as well.

Right- I have lived, studied and worked in several European countries, for several years, and I agree- but targeting and micro-managing businesses, as Chicago is doing to Wal-Mart- is not a necessary prerequisite for such good things in Europe.

And I certainly don't shop at Wal-Mart (too low-brow for me), but for me this issue is largely about freedom. Once one disfavored group or entity is targeted, where will it stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right- I have lived, studied and worked in several European countries, for several years, and I agree- but targeting and micro-managing businesses, as Chicago is doing to Wal-Mart- is not a necessary prerequisite for such good things in Europe.

And I certainly don't shop at Wal-Mart (too low-brow for me), but for me this issue is largely about freedom. Once one disfavored group or entity is targeted, where will it stop?

I see it as a freedom issue as well: The community didn't want these businesses in their neighborhoods unless they provided a certain level of benefit to the community itself. Shouldn't a community be able to decide what type of businesses they want?

"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."

Actually Walmarts costs a community more in infrastructure damage and increased policing than the revenue from sales tax/property tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right- I have lived, studied and worked in several European countries, for several years, and I agree- but targeting and micro-managing businesses, as Chicago is doing to Wal-Mart- is not a necessary prerequisite for such good things in Europe.

And I certainly don't shop at Wal-Mart (too low-brow for me), but for me this issue is largely about freedom. Once one disfavored group or entity is targeted, where will it stop?

Ok so the policies in Europe are not really garbage then.

Freedom in this country means that people elect a representative government. In the case of Chicago, as I said above, the people have elected a government that has decided to place regulations on Walmart. If Walmart doesn't like it, they can leave the city. I don't see how you can argue against allowing the people to decide how they want to regulate businesses in ther community.

I will point out that here in Charlotte, the building of Walmart puts huge strains on the road system which the people end up having to pay to fix in road taxes. There is a thread here about what they have done to the intersection at Hwy 16 and Huntersville-Mt Holly Rd. They ought to be made to pay for of their fair share of what they cost society. Unfortunately here, we have a city council that is too weak willed to take this approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of policies in European countries aren't garbage but the picky company-specific restrictions are. Let's remember, many European countries also until recently had unfree, command-and-control economies, some aspects of which still stick, and which aspects are unfortunate.

For example, one thing that some representative governments in Europe did in and after the 1940s which bugs me, being single, for example, was a bachelor tax to promote marriage. This targeted single guys and took their money unless they quickly got married to whomever. Do we want those kinds of policies today? Do we need those kinds of policies to create an overall good place to live? No.

And just electing a representative government doesn't and shouldn't give that government carte blanche to go after a disfavored entity- especially living in the South, we should remember that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, one thing that some representative governments in Europe did in and after the 1940s which bugs me, being single, for example, was a bachelor tax to promote marriage. This targeted single guys and took their money unless they quickly got married to whomever. Do we want those kinds of policies today? Do we need those kinds of policies to create an overall good place to live? No.

This is making a jump to social engineering from the topic we were discussing. But taking the bait, I note the USA has endless tax policies that promote marriage. For example a business can provide health benefits to a married partner with that partner not having to pay taxes on that benefit. This is no different than the law that you cite because a boyfriend in this country can't get the same benefit for this girlfriend. If anything we do more social engineering here in the USA far more than what takes place in Europe.

Where we differ from Europe here in the USA are in the policies that let individuals and companies accumulate great wealth at the expense of society in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is making a jump to social engineering from the topic we were discussing. But taking the bait, I note the USA has endless tax policies that promote marriage. For example a business can provide health benefits to a married partner with that partner not having to pay taxes on that benefit. This is no different than the law that you cite because a boyfriend in this country can't get the same benefit for this girlfriend. If anything we do more social engineering here in the USA far more than what takes place in Europe.

Where we differ from Europe here in the USA are in the policies that let individuals and companies accumulate great wealth at the expense of society in general.

I think we're starting to talk past each other. I fully support a major increase in the minimum wage, but it should apply across the board, not just for certain entities that activist groups loathe. And I also think that the US lets too much wealth accumulate at the high end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

And yes, I'm a Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the goverment should set up a new tiered wage schedule----similar to how agribusiness pays immigrants to break their backs and souls.

It looks to me that Wal Mart doesn't think so highly of it's employees anyway. They obviously seek out untrained folks so they don't have to pay them much. Since they consider their employees so expendable and worthless, maybe they should set up a special wage scale for Wal Mart employees. Say $3.50 an hour or so.

I'm sure plenty of people from south of the Rio Grande would gladly move in to take those jobs, since they essentially do it now----with their sad back breaking work on America's farms.

Just think how happy the capitalists would be, wages going down, rich folks could even possibly buy a new lakefront condo......

Hell, let's abolish the minimum wage altogether. Just think what a lovely country we would have then~~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Chicago City Council's action should be applauded and is hopefully indicative of a new awareness that all Americans deserve to be able to live in safety and good health. Chicago's stand should help in the goal of erasing the term "working poor" from American society permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm way too young to know the Great Depression or the events that lead up to it from any lived experience, but there are members of my family who did, and their opinions - that some government intervention is a necessity borne out of certain realities of human nature (which transcend political ideology) is drawn directly - even at this late date - from having lived through that era.

Fundamentally, I find certain kinds of free-market theory appealing as theory. But the fact of human nature is that people - rich & powerful, or poor & slovenly - will try to get away with things when they think they can. IMO, a government that - in service of theory - essentially abandons its' populace to the concept that the market will take care of it all, organically, is extremely unrealistic in its' assessment of how people behave. I've worked both service and corporate jobs for people who have insinuated (and in one case, actually explicitly stated) that they'd chain an Indonesian 8-year-old to a cash register (or in a cubicle) for a dime a day if they though they could get away with it. Twas a great inspiration to keep the resume up-to-date, and get the hell out asap.

Pay people something that they can survive on, and make them aware of the basic tools for self-improvement (like getting an education, or improving the one you already have, which - in its' growing expensiveness threatens to nudge us towards the perfect sort of semi-official caste system that we could more easily take advantage of with fewer governmental controls), or pay later to deal with the costs generated by those who fall through the cracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm way too young to know the Great Depression or the events that lead up to it from any lived experience, but there are members of my family who did, and their opinions - that some government intervention is a necessity borne out of certain realities of human nature (which transcend political ideology) is drawn directly - even at this late date - from having lived through that era.

Fundamentally, I find certain kinds of free-market theory appealing as theory. But the fact of human nature is that people - rich & powerful, or poor & slovenly - will try to get away with things when they think they can. IMO, a government that - in service of theory - essentially abandons its' populace to the concept that the market will take care of it all, organically, is extremely unrealistic in its' assessment of how people behave. I've worked both service and corporate jobs for people who have insinuated (and in one case, actually explicitly stated) that they'd chain an Indonesian 8-year-old to a cash register (or in a cubicle) for a dime a day if they though they could get away with it. Twas a great inspiration to keep the resume up-to-date, and get the hell out asap.

Pay people something that they can survive on, and make them aware of the basic tools for self-improvement (like getting an education, or improving the one you already have, which - in its' growing expensiveness threatens to nudge us towards the perfect sort of semi-official caste system that we could more easily take advantage of with fewer governmental controls), or pay later to deal with the costs generated by those who fall through the cracks.

amen. thank you for taking the time to eloquently state your view. i agree 100% but unfortunatley i allow myself to get too impassioned to state it as intelligent as you have. i get the feeling that lots of people think capitalism means freedom with a reckless abandon.... that there should be no social responsibilities. i tend to think that if capitalism is left solely to it's own vice it would manifest not only a "caste" like system but furthermore could generate class warfare. there is a compromise to be found between the extreme left and right of this issue... ultimately, that is the greatest thing about capitalism.

Link to comment
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.

If capitalism is so great and prosperous then why do we have to have so much corporate welfare in this country. Should it not be survival of the fittest which seems to be the model you want to impose on all of the employees of these companies? (It's ironic that survival of the fittest can be the model for an economic idea but not high school science class). Additionally, big business feels that they have the right to tell the government how to do their job and spend our money through lobbyists to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to American corporations. I like to think of it as the federal government, ie. 300 million American taxpayers, are investors in corporate America and the return we expect on our investment is a middle class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people choose to work at those stores, they are choosing to work for whatever wage they are offered. What is so difficult to understand about that? I hope Wal-Mart, Target, and Home Depot pull all their stores out of Chicago.

I don't see how people can actually not understand this concept. If a store is paying the absolute minimum wage and you believe you should make more than that, don't work there! Moreover, if you have no skill other than working a cash register or stocking shelves, do you really think you should be making what some entry-level white collar positions pay? It makes absolutely no sense.

Greed runs companies out of business, and $6/hour employees demanding $10/hour when they knew what they were getting into in the first place is pure greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I hope happens is that the stores stay and make the conditions much more demanding for the fewer people they keep. Make those cart cowboys work!

If capitalism is so great and prosperous then why do we have to have so much corporate welfare in this country. Should it not be survival of the fittest which seems to be the model you want to impose on all of the employees of these companies?

Corporate welfare is the antithesis of free market capitalism. For one it gives some companies unfair advantages from the getgo; Second, Welfare does the same to companies as it does to people, makes them bloated, slow, and lazy; Thirdly it creates an enviornment which the markets didn't create. There are outstanding cases of course, but it seems to be that way. However, one could say that keeping a company afloat and keeping all the jobs intact is better than helping a few hopeless people make ends meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greed runs companies out of business, and $6/hour employees demanding $10/hour when they knew what they were getting into in the first place is pure greed.

Greed at the bottom, but greed at the top as well - Enron anyone? And - apart from that spectacular meltdown - there's a lot less rage and preachifying being aimed UP the chain of command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people choose to work at those stores, they are choosing to work for whatever wage they are offered. What is so difficult to understand about that? I hope Wal-Mart, Target, and Home Depot pull all their stores out of Chicago.

I don't see how people can actually not understand this concept. If a store is paying the absolute minimum wage and you believe you should make more than that, don't work there! Moreover, if you have no skill other than working a cash register or stocking shelves, do you really think you should be making what some entry-level white collar positions pay? It makes absolutely no sense.

Greed runs companies out of business, and $6/hour employees demanding $10/hour when they knew what they were getting into in the first place is pure greed.

That seems like such a peachy keen look at life! Unfortunately, for many, it doesn't work like that. Tuition at public universities have skyrocketed in the past few years, effectively pricing many people out of college. They can't afford college, they don't have the skills necessary to get a better paying job. Thus, you have the endless cycle.

With our republican congress passing laws every other day cutting taxes for the rich and benefits to students and the elderly/veterans, it's becoming harder for people to learn the skills to find the jobs that pay a livable wage.

There seems to be this attitude among conservatives of "You chose that job, deal with it!" or "you chose to live there, pay to rebuild yourself".. yet when it comes to things that don't affect them like abortion or gay marriage.. they're all about gettin' up in your business to tell you what you can and can't do and where you're gonna go when you die.. let me turn this one around... "If you don't like it, then don't have one!"

I honestly hope that lots of places start passing livable wage jobs for companies that take advantage of this country to make their buck. If Wal-Mart doesn't like $10/hr plus $3 in benefits.. then they can do their business elsewhere. But I"m pretty sure they'll just pay their Chicago employees the minimum amount and the people across the city line will still continue to make dirt wages and exploit the government for medical care for their under-insured employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can go to college. Private college loans are pretty easy to get, and if you're poor, there are many Federal options STILL available.

That is unless you're a felon, or you couldn't get into any college to begin with. Community college is always an option too. Sorry, I just feel no sympathy for a career minimum wage earner.

Link to comment
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.

Bravo to the wise owl. If businesses are not held to a standard living wage they will collude with each other to lower wages, not raise them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems like such a peachy keen look at life! Unfortunately, for many, it doesn't work like that. Tuition at public universities have skyrocketed in the past few years, effectively pricing many people out of college. They can't afford college, they don't have the skills necessary to get a better paying job. Thus, you have the endless cycle.

With our republican congress passing laws every other day cutting taxes for the rich and benefits to students and the elderly/veterans, it's becoming harder for people to learn the skills to find the jobs that pay a livable wage.

There seems to be this attitude among conservatives of "You chose that job, deal with it!" or "you chose to live there, pay to rebuild yourself".. yet when it comes to things that don't affect them like abortion or gay marriage.. they're all about gettin' up in your business to tell you what you can and can't do and where you're gonna go when you die.. let me turn this one around... "If you don't like it, then don't have one!"

I honestly hope that lots of places start passing livable wage jobs for companies that take advantage of this country to make their buck. If Wal-Mart doesn't like $10/hr plus $3 in benefits.. then they can do their business elsewhere. But I"m pretty sure they'll just pay their Chicago employees the minimum amount and the people across the city line will still continue to make dirt wages and exploit the government for medical care for their under-insured employees.

Regardless of whether or not businesses pay what some consider a "living wage," we will always have uninsured, underinsured, and non-working people. We will always have welfare as long as our government officials are stupid enough to continue handing out money to people without demanding repayment in the form of money or work.

Let me tell you my own story. Over the past 8 years of my life I've worked my way up the ladder on my own. Just 8 years ago, I was a burger flipper at Burger King and I was living in a roach-infested crap hole with only box fans to cool me off in 100+ degree heat. However I had drive and determination (which freeloaders lack,) and on my own time I went to technical school to learn a craft. My technical education cost many times less than college (barely over $100/term) and I got fully certified in a technical field. Since receiving my certification, I have worked my way up from a $6/hour wage to the comfortable salary I'm earning now. In addition, I was smart enough to marry a woman with similar goals in life, who now makes twice as much money as I.

I told you my story to tell you this: life is about choices, friend. If someone chooses a job (no one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them, by the way) making a certain amount of money, then that person must live with the choice that was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I'm in the wage bracket that Chicago's trying to help and I'm not even for it. Somebody needs to do a micro-management check in that city.

On the other hand, practically nobody pays minimum wage anymore, so might as well just raise it, right?

It's too bad the politics in Chicago are so bad, because I really do love the place and would even live there (!) if it weren't for the politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.