They wrote well:

“What we have here is what liberals used to call the ‘red-lining’ of poor neighborhoods, though this time by the left itself. Liberal advocates have long complained that banks, grocery stores and retailers charge higher prices or refuse to do business in inner cities. But now the very superstores that offer lower prices are being treated as unwelcome.”

Exactly!

It the ordiance isn’t found unconstitutional, then it will eventually work to the detriment of Chicago and its citizens and to the advantage of neighboring communities. The “big box” retailers will build in neighboring communities and will reap the tax revenues. Chicago shoppers will either drive to those locations to shop, or shop at higher priced stores closer to home. In either case, they will pay more.

Brad, I understand your concern but you can’t use a worst case scenario to justify turning sound economic principles upside down and usurping the freedoms of employers to engage in legitimate commerce with the public and their employees. When you rob them of their freedoms you are also robbing all of us ultimately.

Studies show that when the minimum wage is increased, employers who rely on low skill labor either cut back on hours or simply eliminate jobs. Why? Because the market won’t bear them passing the increased costs along and they are unwilling to take the financial hit.

Who’s going to explain to the single mom with a couple of kids why her hours have been reduced or her job eliminated? I’m sure she’ll appreciate her new “living wage” that sounds so compassionate in theory but is cruel in reality.

None of us is suggesting that people should stay at minimum wage. A person who works hard, is responsible, and takes initiative can get ahead fairly easy at Target or Wal-Mart. The fact of the matter is: most people want to do the easy jobs but get paid top dollar for doing it.