Chicago to force retailers to pay $13/hour

[AgentJean]

I bet the 24 hour retailers will no longer offer 24/7 hours. Bet they will have 10-9 hours. Shorten weekend hours and no more being open on holidays. They will also thow in some layoffs and major benfit cuts. If you get $13/hr you can afford your own health insurance(so says walmart)

There. Labour costs cut in half. Not that hard.

 

[AgentJean]

Originally posted by: shoRunner

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: sniperruff
[

it won't be good for employees... stores will hire less people, charge a higher price to stay in business, and people will start driving elsewhere to buy cheaper stuff, eventually lead to businesses closing, which leads to unemployment at the end.

Pass me that crystal ball I want to see if I am getting laid tonight.

just like he didn't need a crystal ball to see that, know one needs a crystal ball to know your not getting "laid" tonight.

The tea leaves say he will.



















He's going to score with his hand.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

The answer to this is very easy: Stop all "social services." Socialism is an abject failure and always has been. You cannot lift one person out of poverty by forcing another to it it for them. Robbing peter to pay paul has never worked, and never will. Marx was a fool.

Nearly all social services were created in the mid 60s, and implemented in the early 70s.

Guess what?

No one was starving in the streets before that and no one was dying of curable diseases.

LBJ's "great society" socialist plan has failed to meet even one of it's goals. Quite the contrary, it has established an alarming sense of entitlement in this country... as evidenced by your very opinions.

And you dare to call me short sighted? Hardly. I have learned from history. You, on the other hand, seem doomed to repeat it.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

The answer to this is very easy: Stop all "social services." Socialism is an abject failure and always has been. You cannot lift one person out of poverty by forcing another to it it for them. Robbing peter to pay paul has never worked, and never will. Marx was a fool.

Nearly all social services were created in the mid 60s, and implemented in the early 70s.

Guess what?

No one was starving in the streets before that and no one was dying of curable diseases.

LBJ's "great society" socialist plan has failed to meet even one of it's goals. Quite the contrary, it has established an alarming sense of entitlement in this country... as evidenced by your very opinions.

And you dare to call me short sighted? Hardly. I have learned from history. You, on the other hand, seem doomed to repeat it.

😕 Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me!? ????

......>>>>???? ???😕??

Anyways social services are basically pointless and are more useless than useful. When you have companies paying slave labor, these people become dependent on social services. They have these jobs because they really can't get any other job, there IS NO CHOICE because there are tons of these people out there.

This situation is similar with the illegals, only difference is that it effects citizens and non citizens alike. If you have a person who can't afford health care and they go to the emergency room for something like a fracture, then you have the state paying hundreds upon hundreds of $$$ a year because going to the emergency room costs significantly more. Had the people been paid decently in the first place, the state wouldn't have to pay a dime for any of this and they would be able to go to a local doctor which is overall less $$, this whole thing is completely absurd and stupid. I fscking hate bureaucracies..

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

The answer to this is very easy: Stop all "social services." Socialism is an abject failure and always has been. You cannot lift one person out of poverty by forcing another to it it for them. Robbing peter to pay paul has never worked, and never will. Marx was a fool.

Nearly all social services were created in the mid 60s, and implemented in the early 70s.

Guess what?

No one was starving in the streets before that and no one was dying of curable diseases.

LBJ's "great society" socialist plan has failed to meet even one of it's goals. Quite the contrary, it has established an alarming sense of entitlement in this country... as evidenced by your very opinions.

And you dare to call me short sighted? Hardly. I have learned from history. You, on the other hand, seem doomed to repeat it.

😕 Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me!? ????

......>>>>???? ???😕??

Anyways social services are basically pointless and are more useless than useful. When you have companies paying slave labor, these people become dependent on social services. They have these jobs because they really can't get any other job, there IS NO CHOICE because there are tons of these people out there.

This situation is similar with the illegals, only difference is that it effects citizens and non citizens alike. If you have a person who can't afford health care and they go to the emergency room for something like a fracture, then you have the state paying hundreds upon hundreds of $$$ a year because going to the emergency room costs significantly more. Had the people been paid decently in the first place, the state wouldn't have to pay a dime for any of this and they would be able to go to a local doctor which is overall less $$, this whole thing is completely absurd and stupid. I fscking hate bureaucracies..

You cannot create artificially high wages. To do so would destroy entire segments of commerce.

At any rate, minimum wage and low wage jobs in general were never intended to be lived off of. They are entry level, non-skilled jobs that are, if the worker has any ambition at all, quickly moved out of into higher paying jobs.

If you're trying to live off of a non-skilled low wage job long term, you have no one to blame but yourself... so long as you're not mentally disabled.

Want people to be paid "decently?" Encourage them to find some ambition and move up to a better job. Get a skill or education. Do SOMETHING. But do NOT expect to do nothing and be paid more for the unskilled labor they do. Labor is a commodity. To earn more they have to make their labor worth more.

 

[Philippine Mango]

I've never understood this whole 'unskilled labor' type thing. They say that because they're unskilled and can only do jobs that don't really require a skill, they automatically get paid below poverty. How is it back in the 50s people got away with unskilled labor? They lived good lives and they weren't that educated..

It's like college is a requirement now, so what, in 20 years from now when everyone has a highschool and college education, then what is going to be the requirement??? MA, Doctorate? It's like no matter what you have to have a society with people in poverty? I find that hard to believe, there should be a job for everyone, while some jobs make significantly more than others, I don't think thats an excuse for there being jobs that pay below poverty.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
I've never understood this whole 'unskilled labor' type thing. They say that because they're unskilled and can only do jobs that don't really require a skill, they automatically get paid below poverty. How is it back in the 50s people got away with unskilled labor? They lived good lives and they weren't that educated..

It's like college is a requirement now, so what, in 20 years from now when everyone has a highschool and college education, then what is going to be the requirement??? MA, Doctorate? It's like no matter what you have to have a society with people in poverty? I find that hard to believe, there should be a job for everyone, while some jobs make significantly more than others, I don't think thats an excuse for there being jobs that pay below poverty.

Labor is a commodity. The easier it is to replace, the less it is worth. The less skill a job requires, the easier it is to find someone else to do it.

Paying too much for low/non-skilled jobs is the main reason US companies are outsourcing. US labor is already pricing itself out of jobs. Manufacturing for the most part unionized, demanded outrageous pay for low-skilled jobs, and virtually destroyed manufacturing in this country.

And yes, there will always be people in poverty. Why? Because some people are lazy. Others work hard, but have no ambition whatsoever. Still others may work hard, but become very lazy when it comes to gaining a valuable skill or an education. Some others are just plain stupid a have no responsibility whatsoever. And some people are dishonest, and destroy their reputation. There are many reasons for poverty and virtually NONE of them have anything to do with what companies pay.

There IS a job for everyone. The problem is, not everyone is willing to gain the skills and education required to do these jobs.

You think people are entitled to a living wage. They are not. They are entitled to an equal opportunity to gain the ability to EARN a living wage. And equality of opportunity is NOT equality of outcome. If they fsck up their lives, they are entitled to nothing at all.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
I've never understood this whole 'unskilled labor' type thing. They say that because they're unskilled and can only do jobs that don't really require a skill, they automatically get paid below poverty. How is it back in the 50s people got away with unskilled labor? They lived good lives and they weren't that educated..

It's like college is a requirement now, so what, in 20 years from now when everyone has a highschool and college education, then what is going to be the requirement??? MA, Doctorate? It's like no matter what you have to have a society with people in poverty? I find that hard to believe, there should be a job for everyone, while some jobs make significantly more than others, I don't think thats an excuse for there being jobs that pay below poverty.

Let me try to explain. When I was 13, I got paid "below poverty" wages to clean up the office my dad worked at. I did the job becuase it got me some spending money. Are you trying to tell me an adult should be able to make a career out of a job that a 13 yr old can do? Should I have been paid $30k/year for that job? There are countless jobs being done in this country that are not intended as careers.

Education is one of the ways that people seperate themselves from the crowd when trying to get a high paying job. So yes, 20/30/50/100 years from now people will need to have advanced learning in order to have good jobs. Your argument that people should all be uneducated and still make a nice wage so that they can enjoy life would fit in very well in Marxist Russia. Oops, I forgot, Communist Russia collapsed because the people there were tired of waiting a week to get a loaf of bread.

 

[Pikachu]

How is it back in the 50s people got away with unskilled labor? They lived good lives and they weren't that educated..

That ride couldn't last forever. The rest of the world is catching up. They now have the capabilities to do what our "unskilled" workers did.

Either we reap the lower costs of their goods, and suffer the loss of menial jobs, or create protectionist type tariffs and barriers to keep those jobs, but with much higher prices on the taxed imports or US made products. That giant sucking sound was no joke, but IMO, US consumers benefit more from the lower costs of goods, than suffer from the loss of those jobs.

Our grandparents lived in a utopia that will never be repeated. Of course, they never had microwaves, VCRs, giant color TVs and all the disposable amenities we enjoy today. Even our "poor" have roofs over their heads, food on the table, phone service, a car or two and access to health care. If they wanted, they could double up with their extended families and live even cheaper, but most choose not to.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: So
This will end well...


...and by 'well' I mean, "with an amusing slump for a rust belt city"

i doubt it will be that bad. sure i bet some retailers will scale back. but not to pull out of the city. there is just to much money to be made even with the $13/hour


but i do see a slowdown. But it is good for the Burbs anyway heh.

economy is all about growth. you kill growth, you kill the economy.

 

[SampSon]

I'm going to get a night job!

 

[JS80]

I learned 2 things in this thread. 1) PaulNEpats is an elitest and 2) he is an idiot.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JonTheBaller

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: waggy

ahh but i forget its the popular thing to bash walmart.

I shop at target, better products, nicer stores, better neighborhoods and shoppers. If that makes me stupid in your eyes....eh

HAHAHAHA So you don't shop at big evil Wal-Mart, but you'll shop at Target. You're really going to change things by shopping at Target instead of Wal-Mart, Mr. Big Liberal Idealist.

Just means Target did a better job lying, i mean marketing, to liberal hippies.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: So
This will end well...


...and by 'well' I mean, "with an amusing slump for a rust belt city"

i doubt it will be that bad. sure i bet some retailers will scale back. but not to pull out of the city. there is just to much money to be made even with the $13/hour


but i do see a slowdown. But it is good for the Burbs anyway heh.

economy is all about growth. you kill growth, you kill the economy.

true.

but i dont think it will kill it. hurt it? yeah. they might have a slow down.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: So
This will end well...


...and by 'well' I mean, "with an amusing slump for a rust belt city"

i doubt it will be that bad. sure i bet some retailers will scale back. but not to pull out of the city. there is just to much money to be made even with the $13/hour


but i do see a slowdown. But it is good for the Burbs anyway heh.

economy is all about growth. you kill growth, you kill the economy.

true.

but i dont think it will kill it. hurt it? yeah. they might have a slow down.

in this economy, if you are not growing, you are actually shrinking (because of inflation). in order to remain competitive in the global markets (or even local markets), you have to grow. think about it this way, the city economy stalls, population increases (costs to serve citizens increase), tax revenue shrinks, job supply shrinks (because other cities' economies are growing, jobs/people will gravitate towards there),===> people move out. eventually you can no longer support the fixed costs you have in your city. the rich stay rich, and poor get poorer. this is how elitest democrats hold power in the localities of this country. i mean, hey, if i were a racist rich guy, i would be a democrat and vote to increase welfare.

 

[mattocs]

WOW!

You can raise a family on $13/hr here!

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

Got any empirical data?

sure you might want to pay for it, but the worker who is getting that low wage might not. so lets sum it up. raise min wage X amount, Prices across the board go up a X amount to make up for the profit loss. so tell me how the min wage worker makes out when their cost of living just went up as well.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

Got any empirical data?

sure you might want to pay for it, but the worker who is getting that low wage might not. so lets sum it up. raise min wage X amount, Prices across the board go up a X amount to make up for the profit loss. so tell me how the min wage worker makes out when their cost of living just went up as well.

Because there is data out there that say that the price of living does not go up every single time they've increased minimum wage, that's why. People charge low wages because they can, not because they're required. Just because you raise minimum wage, it doesn't mean prices will increase across the board.. Think about oil, if you increase minimum wage, do you really believe this will have an effect on oil? Highly doubt it. Making cars? Doubt it, food? Unless you're expecting to run a whole economy on illegal immigrants because you're a cheap a-hole, no... There are plenty of examples of industries that aren't effected by such things as a minimum wage increase because they don't pay minimum wage.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

Got any empirical data?

sure you might want to pay for it, but the worker who is getting that low wage might not. so lets sum it up. raise min wage X amount, Prices across the board go up a X amount to make up for the profit loss. so tell me how the min wage worker makes out when their cost of living just went up as well.

Because there is data out there that say that the price of living does not go up every single time they've increased minimum wage, that's why. People charge low wages because they can, not because they're required. Just because you raise minimum wage, it doesn't mean prices will increase across the board.. Think about oil, if you increase minimum wage, do you really believe this will have an effect on oil? Highly doubt it. Making cars? Doubt it, food? Unless you're expecting to run a whole economy on illegal immigrants because you're a cheap a-hole, no... There are plenty of examples of industries that aren't effected by such things as a minimum wage increase because they don't pay minimum wage.

Wow you are very uneducated. Have you even ever taken an economics class?

 

[fitzov]

Oh boo hoo.

Stop whining about how Walmart will have to pay a livable wage.

 

[Pikachu]

Gawd, I hope you Socialist fvcktards aren't registered to vote!

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

Got any empirical data?

sure you might want to pay for it, but the worker who is getting that low wage might not. so lets sum it up. raise min wage X amount, Prices across the board go up a X amount to make up for the profit loss. so tell me how the min wage worker makes out when their cost of living just went up as well.

Because there is data out there that say that the price of living does not go up every single time they've increased minimum wage, that's why. People charge low wages because they can, not because they're required. Just because you raise minimum wage, it doesn't mean prices will increase across the board.. Think about oil, if you increase minimum wage, do you really believe this will have an effect on oil? Highly doubt it. Making cars? Doubt it, food? Unless you're expecting to run a whole economy on illegal immigrants because you're a cheap a-hole, no... There are plenty of examples of industries that aren't effected by such things as a minimum wage increase because they don't pay minimum wage.

Wow you are very uneducated. Have you even ever taken an economics class?

Wow you must not read do you?

"In early industrial capitalism, the middle class was defined primarily as white-collar workers?those who worked for wages (like all workers), but did so in conditions that were comfortable and safe compared to the conditions for blue-collar workers of the "working class." The expansion of the phrase "middle class" in the United States appears to have been predicated in the 1970s by the decline of labor unions in the US and the entrance of formerly domestic women into the public workforce. A great number of pink-collar jobs arose, where people could avoid the dangerous conditions of blue-collar work and therefore claim to be "middle class" even if they were making far less money than a unionized blue-collar worker." -Wikipedia

According to wikipedia, it says that the middle class spawned because there was a need for whitecollar, semi-educated jobs. Ok, well let's say everybody who does blue-collar work ATM now has the equivalent education of a typical white collar worker, then what? That typical white collar worker now has a slightly better education. Do we have wages that are the equivalent of white collar of today but just call them lower class anyways since they make less money or are we back at square one with the same wages as they did before, except now we have more skilled workers out there...?

If a middle class be created out of nothing, what's to say a lower class can't be all but eliminated? (At least financially speaking) Personally I don't care if there is a lower class, what bothers me is the fact that I feel like I'm being told there should be a lot of people who are barely making it by no matter how good the situation is simply because 'thats the way it is".

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: notfred
Meh, San Francisco has similar pay requirements and it hasn't collapsed in on itself due to economic problems.

esplain more

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Citrix
i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

Something I'm willing to pay for, I don't care if I have to pay a dollar extra on clothing or a computer product if that means that I don't have to spend an extra $5000+ a year on social services because these people can't afford to live like this. I don't think people understand the consequences of having 'slave labour', when you do this, you pay at least 2X as much in paying for services for making up for the fact that people can't live on low wages and therefore you negate any savings from paying them less in hourly wages. People are so short sighted it's fscking hilarious.

Got any empirical data?

sure you might want to pay for it, but the worker who is getting that low wage might not. so lets sum it up. raise min wage X amount, Prices across the board go up a X amount to make up for the profit loss. so tell me how the min wage worker makes out when their cost of living just went up as well.

Because there is data out there that say that the price of living does not go up every single time they've increased minimum wage, that's why. People charge low wages because they can, not because they're required. Just because you raise minimum wage, it doesn't mean prices will increase across the board.. Think about oil, if you increase minimum wage, do you really believe this will have an effect on oil? Highly doubt it. Making cars? Doubt it, food? Unless you're expecting to run a whole economy on illegal immigrants because you're a cheap a-hole, no... There are plenty of examples of industries that aren't effected by such things as a minimum wage increase because they don't pay minimum wage.

Wow you are very uneducated. Have you even ever taken an economics class?

Wow you must not read do you?

"In early industrial capitalism, the middle class was defined primarily as white-collar workers?those who worked for wages (like all workers), but did so in conditions that were comfortable and safe compared to the conditions for blue-collar workers of the "working class." The expansion of the phrase "middle class" in the United States appears to have been predicated in the 1970s by the decline of labor unions in the US and the entrance of formerly domestic women into the public workforce. A great number of pink-collar jobs arose, where people could avoid the dangerous conditions of blue-collar work and therefore claim to be "middle class" even if they were making far less money than a unionized blue-collar worker." -Wikipedia

According to wikipedia, it says that the middle class spawned because there was a need for whitecollar, semi-educated jobs. Ok, well let's say everybody who does blue-collar work ATM now has the equivalent education of a typical white collar worker, then what? That typical white collar worker now has a slightly better education. Do we have wages that are the equivalent of white collar of today but just call them lower class anyways since they make less money or are we back at square one with the same wages as they did before, except now we have more skilled workers out there...?

If a middle class be created out of nothing, what's to say a lower class can't be all but eliminated? (At least financially speaking) Personally I don't care if there is a lower class, what bothers me is the fact that I feel like I'm being told there should be a lot of people who are barely making it by no matter how good the situation is simply because 'thats the way it is".

I have 2 issues with what you quoted, which btw have nothing to say about price controls

1) old economy =/= new economy
2) price controls of wages do not work. they hurt the people they intend to help. politicians KNOW THIS. they do it to keep the poor down and stay in power because the poor are too dumb to know and vote for these dumbasses anyway

go take an econ class or something. you sound like a ucla sociology major.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: notfred
Meh, San Francisco has similar pay requirements and it hasn't collapsed in on itself due to economic problems.

esplain more

he has no idea what he's talking about. SF minimum wage is $8.82. The rest are on the SF welfare plan.