Who needs Target or Wall Mart anyway? It is better to have no jobs for the people than to have thousands of job at less than a LIVING WAGE. I mean if we cant pay these people 10 dollars an hour plus 3 dollars an hour in benefits then what has this world come to.
Check out the wage war section of the article. What the hell is Chicago's deal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
almost $11.00 an hour. Thats $2.00 short of what i currently make and i have two degree and several years of experience in doing reserach.
As for target I worked there when i was 16. You know when i had no degrees and no experience. Thats how specialied your skill set has to be to work at target. Sixteen year olds can do it.
Some time someone is going to have to explain to me why my eight years of schooling two years of experience is with just a little bit more than a 16 years olds part time job.
Thanks living wage. You make me want to vote democratic instead of do something productivity with my life.
I find it pretty funny that even though you talk up the value of local government, as soon as a city tries to pass legislation to help it's citizens that will inconvenience a big busines, you immediately jump to defending the business and condemning local government. Damn Chicago for trying to raise the standard of living of it's poorest residents.
By the way, thanks for pointing out that Chicago will lose thousands of jobs if Target and Wal-Mart leave. Your totally right, demand for goods and services INCREASES when a giant chain stre enters an area, creating more jobs; when that giant chain store leaves, no one wants the things they were buying there any more, so no smaller local businesses would ever spring up to provide them.
Sophist, I'm about to get a $4/hour pay increase in September. Because I got 4 more years of education in a month? No, because I'm doing the exact same job in a city where the cost of living is 50% higher than it is where I am now. Certainly if a $10 minimum wage was being mandated nationally it would be crazy, but one of the requirements for advocating local governance is that you have to take into account unique local issues when looking at specific local decisions- in this case, the much higher cost of living in Chicago, which makes your comparison pretty short-sighted and irrelevant.
$10 an hour plus benefits is not even close to what our citizens here in chicago need to get by. We have a higher minmim wage in Chicago allready. Somewhere in the 6 plus range. You require businesses to play their employees that much - you are going to force that business to have not only less employees in that store (less jobs) plus the merchandise is going to be way more expensive. So it is a wash. So now basically all you have set up is a system which allows for less jobs.
By the way people shop at Wall Mart and Target because they are convenient DISCOUNT retail store. THis plan kind of takes away from the whole discount part. Also, if all these stores were gone people will find other places but the prices are going to be higher at the smaller private stores.
I think this is one of the differences between local and federal governments- local governments are, to some noticeable extent, competing with each other. I don't know where the corporate headquarters, or whatever, of Wal-Mart is, but you can bet that when the Wal-Mart in Chicago turns a profit, that money immediately leaves Chicago, leaving the city poorer overall. Whereas the local businesses which Wal-Mart displaces would have been spending their profits right back into the community. Whether or notthis is a 'fair' or 'just' legislation is one question, but whether or not it was a fiscally inteligent move for people whose only concern is improving Chicago's economy is another.
As I said, the federal government trying to pass something like this would be outrageous, but local governments get a lot more latitude in this type of thing, because they often need it to keep their communities going.
Post a Comment