« The 2007 Toyota Tundra – UGLY! | Main | Dreamhost Was Down TWICE This Morning »
More on Chicago’s Minimum Wage Blunder
By JLP | August 9, 2006
I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. According to the Chicago Tribune, it looks like the minimum wage requirement of $10 per hour + $3 per hour in benefits may be vetoed by Mayor Daley. Lowes, Wal-Mart, and Target are all looking to build in the Chicago area but have so far halted any construction plans until they find out what is going to happen. It even looks like some of the aldermen who voted for the measure are having second thoughts.
One other thing I find interesting is this quote from the article:
The big-box measure applies to stores of at least 90,000 square feet operated by firms with $1 billion or more in annual sales. By 2010, the minimum wage for employees will be $10 an hour and $3 in fringe benefits. Automatic annual cost-of-living increases will apply thereafter.
Can anyone explain to me WHY this isn’t discrimination?
I know Mayor Daley is a huge Democrat, but he’s earning my respect on this deal.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
UPDATE: I was doing a little more reading on this topic and found this editorial by Mike Flynn in the Chicago Sun-Times. He makes some good points. Personally, I think this whole minimum wage deal is simply a ploy by politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) to simply get votes. I mean really, what minimum-wage voter is going to think RAISING the minimum wage is a bad idea? If you’re a politician and a minimum wage increase comes across your desk, you better vote yes or your competition will be all over you.
Related: AFL-CIO is “partnering” with a day-labor group.
Topics: Miscellaneous | 7 Comments »
August 10th, 2006 at 10:05 am
It is quite interesting. It just goes to show how raising the minimum wage just doesn’t give the desired effect.
There is another way that they could get around it, though… they could just build smaller stores… Instead of having the super stores, they could just break them up, maybe, and have a “campus” where there is the grocery area in its own store, and the traditional items in another… they could even take the auto centers out and put them in their own buildings. However, just vetoing the bill will have a decent effect, as well.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Yeah I thought of that but there is also the “$1 billion or more in sales” criteria.
I still think it is discriminatory and gives an advantage to smaller stores.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
With amazing profits by stores like Wal-Mart, what’s wrong with expecting some of that good fortune to be shared with the workers at the stores?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Through a Glass Darkly,
I say let these companies pay their employees what they are worth, not some number that someone “thinks” is a living wage.
The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
This ordinance and the Maryland health care law that was recently struck down are both attempts by certain interest groups to harass big retailers, particularly Wal Mart. The fact that Wal Mart is non-union pisses these groups off to no end, so they craft this legislation and find friendly politicos to push it into law. When you see that the measures are meant to harass Wal Mart and other big retailers, and not to benefit low wage workers, the discriminitory nature of the ordinance begins to make sense.
If it were really meant to benefit low wage workers with a “living wage”, then it would apply to all workers. Why is a low paid worker at the mom and pop drug store on the corner any less deserving of a “living wage” than the worker at Wal Mart?
August 10th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
What do you mean by “discrimination”? Governments discriminate all the time (e.g. zoning laws). Do you mean illegal discrimination?
August 10th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Actually, it has little to do with minimum-wage voters – there are very few of these since many minimum-wage earners are teenagers who can’t vote. It has more to do with getting the feelgood vote.