Chicago to force retailers to pay $13/hour

[ultimatebob]

Great... If food at O'Hare wasn't expensive enough already! I can't wait to start paying $8 for a burger and $3.50 for small soda in order to cover their recently doubled labor prices.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: JS80

Wow you are very uneducated. Have you even ever taken an economics class?[/quote]


Well since you could get two economists with advanced degrees to argue both sides of the issue with opposite opinions, would it really matter if he had taken a economics class?

Quit trying to impress us with your "hoilier than thou" attitude.

You get a fcuking raise, everyone you work with gets a raise, why are you so against people who have no leverage getting a raise?

I dont know how old you are but minimum wage was like 1.80 hr. when I started working and people have said every single time this issue has come up that business will be hurt. B.S.

If a walmart store has 1200 man hrs per day labor and 5000 transactions per day. Increase wage by .50 per hour.

Translates to what?

.75 cents per transaction.

.02 per item?

Yeah, you and walmart will be broke by the end of the year.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: mattocs
WOW!

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

most people probably cant. but then again, dont create a familiy if all you can get is $13/hr!!!!!!!!!!

edit:
oh you mean 2 people working at $13/hr? then yeah at $26/hr.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: 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.

Who says these are price controls? Having a minimum wage as ridiculous as it is now is just not acceptable. So what are you views on these sort of matters anyways? Are you one to advocate the usage of illegal immigrants?

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

So you have no rational argument as to why it is horrible, except that in relative terms it is worse than an American office job?

Are we still talking about sweatshops in other parts of the world? If so, what about hazardous working conditions, 16 hour workdays, horrible wages, and no benefits to speak of?

We were never talking about sweatshops in other parts of the world. This post is about Chicago, IL USA.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: mattocs
WOW!

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

most people probably cant. but then again, dont create a familiy if all you can get is $13/hr!!!!!!!!!!

edit:
oh you mean 2 people working at $13/hr? then yeah at $26/hr.

hey that's class warfare--the poor can have families too

 

[knightc2]

the idea that everyone works any job and get the same wage as others has been tried and failed.

Its called communism!



I don't have the numbers in front of me but only ~5% of US wage earners make the minimum wage. Most jobs pay more. Employers compete for employees. If you want decent employees you have to pay them more money. The market dictates the wages we pay employees. If WalMart only paid $5/hr then people would go to McDonalds or somewhere else to work or they would only get very lousy workers. If government is allowed to set wages then what else do we allow them to set? So if I'm forced to pay my employess $13 instead of $8 I will have to raise my prices to compensate for that. Not to mention I am not going to hire $8 employees, I will hire $13 employees. Therefore the less educated less qualified workers that would have been employed at $8 don't get hired. It hurts them and it hurts those that shop there in the form of higher prices.

 

[BoberFett]

Having a job is no different than owning a company. You offer a service, and somebody pays you for it. If they don't think your service is worth as much as you're charging, they simply won't use you. "Living wage" has nothing to do with anything, it's a feel-good term. If you can't live off of what your service is worth, you either need to improve your service or charge less. It's what businesses have to do, and it's what employees have to do also.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Having a job is no different than owning a company. You offer a service, and somebody pays you for it. If they don't think your service is worth as much as you're charging, they simply won't use you. "Living wage" has nothing to do with anything, it's a feel-good term. If you can't live off of what your service is worth, you either need to improve your service or charge less. It's what businesses have to do, and it's what employees have to do also.

Such a naive view of labor. Would you have told the slaves to simply find another job? How about the Indian kids in the rugshops who are sold by their parents? If you prefer something more recent in American history, how about the miners whose only option was to rent and buy supplies from the companies they worked for? Do you think workers should be able to bargain collectively? There's a whole host of issues other than the ideal and non-existent "free market".

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

what employees, the ones who are suddenly unemployed because the store can't compete?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused
This is how liberals often kill off the tax base of the cities they control.

A perfect example is to compare Urbana, IL to Champaign, IL. Two cities that have virtually grown into one, with two separate and very different governments. Liberal controlled Urbana is filled with government housing, and has chased out and/or denied entry to a great many industries and retail developments. Champaign, on the other hand, is moderately controlled and has welcomed all comers in industry and retail.

Urbana was forced to raise property taxes on private homes to a rate nearly double what Champaign charges, and because of a mass exodus and huge slump in new housing, was forced to offer 3 year breaks to new home buyers.

don't insult liberals. surely this is the Democrats' work

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
The point of it being the MINIMUM wage is it's the MINIMUM that you can be paid for survival. It's just fortunate that minimum wage jobs are somewhat rare.

no, that's not the point of the minimum wage. the point of the minimum wage, according to the law, is to manipulate the no-skill labor market so that no-skilled laborers receive the maximum benefit, in aggregate, that they can receive. in other words, it should be set at the point where any marginal movement upward of the wage ($0.01/hr) would be outweighed by the loss of jobs that would result, and and marginal movement downward in the wage wouldn't be made up by the increase in jobs available.

according to labor unions (and Democrats, but i don't think a lot of them realise this), the minimum wage is a force to be used to drive people to substitute union (skilled) labor for no-skill labor. if you don't believe that is why labor unions universally want an increase for the minimum wage, then ask yourself this: why would the racist white tradeskill unions in south africa support raising the minimum wage for black laborers?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Any decent economist will tell you that throwing money at underdeveloped countries is the exact wrong way to accomplish anything.

here's a recent quote from the WSJ, citing the Times:

Ask Andrew Mwenda how rich nations can help Africa and you get a quick and disturbing answer.

"The best thing the West can do is nothing," he says.

The Ugandan journalist and broadcaster is in London telling anyone who is prepared to listen that aid has been a disaster for Africa, fuelling corruption and hindering development . . .. Aid is the problem, not the solution, he says. Debt relief is a moral hazard. What is the incentive for country "A" to continue paying interest on its borrowings if country "B" steals the money, defaults and then gets debt relief?

"Countries that are deserving don't get aid," says Mr. Mwenda. Aid creates the wrong incentives, he argues. It makes objects of the poor, passive recipients of charity rather than active participants in their own economic betterment. Africans don't need handouts, they need better institutions, land reform and access to cheap mortgages.

"Countries and individuals get richer out of self-interest. Capital is a by-product of development, not an input," says Mr. Mwenda.

Aid is directing self-interest elsewhere because, instead of engaging in a risky dialogue with their citizens about reform, African politicians would rather talk to aid donors and solicit handouts. "Africans need to move on from the slave trade and stop whining," says Mr. Mwenda.-- From an article in the Times of London by Carl Mortishead

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Having a job is no different than owning a company. You offer a service, and somebody pays you for it. If they don't think your service is worth as much as you're charging, they simply won't use you. "Living wage" has nothing to do with anything, it's a feel-good term. If you can't live off of what your service is worth, you either need to improve your service or charge less. It's what businesses have to do, and it's what employees have to do also.

Such a naive view of labor. Would you have told the slaves to simply find another job? How about the Indian kids in the rugshops who are sold by their parents? If you prefer something more recent in American history, how about the miners whose only option was to rent and buy supplies from the companies they worked for? Do you think workers should be able to bargain collectively? There's a whole host of issues other than the ideal and non-existent "free market".

whoa what country do you live in?

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

what employees, the ones who are suddenly unemployed because the store can't compete?

The article said "very large retailers." I'm sure Walmart, the expansion king, can handle paying their staff a decent wage.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

what employees, the ones who are suddenly unemployed because the store can't compete?

The article said "very large retailers." I'm sure Walmart, the expansion king, can handle paying their staff a decent wage.

Do you realize Wal-Mart's profit margin is only 3.5%? In lay man's terms, they make 3.5 cents per every $1 of sale.

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Having a job is no different than owning a company. You offer a service, and somebody pays you for it. If they don't think your service is worth as much as you're charging, they simply won't use you. "Living wage" has nothing to do with anything, it's a feel-good term. If you can't live off of what your service is worth, you either need to improve your service or charge less. It's what businesses have to do, and it's what employees have to do also.

Such a naive view of labor. Would you have told the slaves to simply find another job? How about the Indian kids in the rugshops who are sold by their parents? If you prefer something more recent in American history, how about the miners whose only option was to rent and buy supplies from the companies they worked for? Do you think workers should be able to bargain collectively? There's a whole host of issues other than the ideal and non-existent "free market".

whoa what country do you live in?

Yeah man. We are talking about Chicago here. Things don't work like that anymore. Slavery has been abolished, kids aren't being sold in rugshops, and the miners can work elsewhere if they are not happy. We have choices. Both employees and employers. That is how capitalism works.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

what employees, the ones who are suddenly unemployed because the store can't compete?

The article said "very large retailers." I'm sure Walmart, the expansion king, can handle paying their staff a decent wage.

Do you realize Wal-Mart's profit margin is only 3.5%? In lay man's terms, they make 3.5 cents per every $1 of sale.

Text

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JEDI
most people probably cant. but then again, dont create a familiy if all you can get is $13/hr!!!!!!!!!!

unfortunately, seems a lot of people can't figure that out. then they demand goverment assistance, which has created a whole class of people dependent upon government assistance in order to eat, and who will continually vote Democrat because that is the only way, they think, that they will continue to eat.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Who says these are price controls? Having a minimum wage as ridiculous as it is now is just not acceptable. So what are you views on these sort of matters anyways? Are you one to advocate the usage of illegal immigrants?

...


a minimum wage is a price control

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

what employees, the ones who are suddenly unemployed because the store can't compete?

The article said "very large retailers." I'm sure Walmart, the expansion king, can handle paying their staff a decent wage.

so, just because they're making an accounting profit, you assume it makes up for the risk factors and costs of capital?

not to mention that they could make MORE money by not being in chicago and sticking with the surrounding areas. so why should they bother opening a store in chicago?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BigJ
Any decent economist will tell you that throwing money at underdeveloped countries is the exact wrong way to accomplish anything.

here's a recent quote from the WSJ, citing the Times:

Ask Andrew Mwenda how rich nations can help Africa and you get a quick and disturbing answer.

"The best thing the West can do is nothing," he says.

The Ugandan journalist and broadcaster is in London telling anyone who is prepared to listen that aid has been a disaster for Africa, fuelling corruption and hindering development . . .. Aid is the problem, not the solution, he says. Debt relief is a moral hazard. What is the incentive for country "A" to continue paying interest on its borrowings if country "B" steals the money, defaults and then gets debt relief?

"Countries that are deserving don't get aid," says Mr. Mwenda. Aid creates the wrong incentives, he argues. It makes objects of the poor, passive recipients of charity rather than active participants in their own economic betterment. Africans don't need handouts, they need better institutions, land reform and access to cheap mortgages.

"Countries and individuals get richer out of self-interest. Capital is a by-product of development, not an input," says Mr. Mwenda.

Aid is directing self-interest elsewhere because, instead of engaging in a risky dialogue with their citizens about reform, African politicians would rather talk to aid donors and solicit handouts. "Africans need to move on from the slave trade and stop whining," says Mr. Mwenda.-- From an article in the Times of London by Carl Mortishead

:thumbsup:

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Having a job is no different than owning a company. You offer a service, and somebody pays you for it. If they don't think your service is worth as much as you're charging, they simply won't use you. "Living wage" has nothing to do with anything, it's a feel-good term. If you can't live off of what your service is worth, you either need to improve your service or charge less. It's what businesses have to do, and it's what employees have to do also.

Such a naive view of labor. Would you have told the slaves to simply find another job? How about the Indian kids in the rugshops who are sold by their parents? If you prefer something more recent in American history, how about the miners whose only option was to rent and buy supplies from the companies they worked for? Do you think workers should be able to bargain collectively? There's a whole host of issues other than the ideal and non-existent "free market".

whoa what country do you live in?

Yeah man. We are talking about Chicago here. Things don't work like that anymore. Slavery has been abolished, kids aren't being sold in rugshops, and the miners can work elsewhere if they are not happy. We have choices. Both employees and employers. That is how capitalism works.

Well then I guess you don't have a problem with unions, because that is the employees choosing to bargain collectively. When they do, all you will be left with is a shrug.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Who says these are price controls? Having a minimum wage as ridiculous as it is now is just not acceptable. So what are you views on these sort of matters anyways? Are you one to advocate the usage of illegal immigrants?

...


a minimum wage is a price control

then so is the negotiation of a ceo's salary, or the deciding of benefits packages, or the splitting of stock. just because it affects prices doesn't mean it counts as a price "control". Ultimately, (unless we are talking about Canadian health care) prices are controlled by the seller.

 

[compuwiz1]

This is a beautiful thing. I only hope it spreads. I've always felt that the Walmarts of the world would and should get their "just deserts".