Chicago to force retailers to pay $13/hour

[straightalker]

I like the idea of a "living wage". But to achieve that i'd do something much more than just force some Corporations to pay up. We need some sort of way to combat the forces of monopoly capitalism that are creating a huge gap between the numbers of HAVES verses the HAVE NOTS.

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve scam and the Central Bankers by returning the function of creating and managing money back to Congress will help tremendously. Alot can be cleaned up. Setting up a fair and free market in a well managed economy with good laws to prevent monopolies and other scams with return sanity back. Maybe by then supply and demand and prosperity will begin to solve the problem of so many working-poor people being forced into poverty in the USA.

If you have a 40 hour a week job you should be able to afford at least the spartan basics of life. Without the Government subsidizing Corporate greed with food stamps and medicare.

 

[zendari]

LOL. Good luck pulling this off.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fitzov

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.

no, the CEO's salary is set by the market. minimum wage is a price control in the form of a price floor imposed by government.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: straightalker
I like the idea of a "living wage". But to achieve that i'd do something much more than just force some Corporations to pay up. We need some sort of way to combat the forces of monopoly capitalism that are creating a huge gap between the numbers of HAVES verses the HAVE NOTS.

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve scam and the Central Bankers by returning the function of creating and managing money back to Congress will help tremendously. Alot can be cleaned up. Setting up a fair and free market in a well managed economy with good laws to prevent monopolies and other scams with return sanity back. Maybe by then supply and demand and prosperity will begin to solve the problem of so many working-poor people being forced into poverty in the USA.

If you have a 40 hour a week job you should be able to afford at least the spartan basics of life. Without the Government subsidizing Corporate greed with food stamps and medicare.

the only thing that would create a 'living wage' is to eliminate all jobs that aren't worth that. but then most of the high schoolers living under their parents' roof would be out of a job. why would you want that? damn near the ONLY people on minimum wage are high schoolers working part time.

as for 'corporate greed,' what you're really refering to is probably the largest 1/1000 of 1% of corporations in the US. there are a LOT of corporations. 'corporate greed' is a stupid term. exxon isn't any more or less 'greedy' than the transmission shop down the street with 1 shareholder, or the pizza shop with 3 locations around town, yet exxon is a target for scorn and damnation.

i honestly have no idea what people's beef with the federal reserve is. congress would never accept the responsibility of managing the money supply (congress tries to delegate as much as possible so they can wash their hands of any negative outcome). if congress did manage the money supply, and that 's a big if, we'd probably be stuck in an endless inflation loop like 3rd world countries who don't have the wherewithall to fight inflation and thus achieve prosperity. inflation is the worst enemy of the economy.

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually I do have a problem with unions. Unions were created to protect workers that were exploited by businesses during the industrial revolution. Unions did a lot of good back then and helped create fair and safe working conditions for US workers. Things are much different today. Unions often do more bad than good. Just ask General Motors what they think about unions. Unions drive up costs and often make it impossible to discipline or fire problem workers. Unions have become far too powerful.

In many cases workers do not have a choice. You either join the union or you don't have a job. Unions also can prevent you form getting employment. My Aunt has a Masters in Education. She can't find a job because the school districts choose to hire less qualified applicants because they can pay them less. Because she has a certain level of schooling the union says they must pay her more. Because of that she can't find a job in a public school. Just another case of governement regulations that at one time meant well but are now doing more harm than good.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fitzov

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.

no, the CEO's salary is set by the market. minimum wage is a price control in the form of a price floor imposed by government.

actually, the ceo's salary is decided by a board, not the market.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually I do have a problem with unions. Unions were created to protect workers that were exploited by businesses during the industrial revolution. Unions did a lot of good back then and helped create fair and safe working conditions for US workers. Things are much different today. Unions often do more bad than good. Just ask General Motors what they think about unions. Unions drive up costs and often make it impossible to discipline or fire problem workers. Unions have become far too powerful.

In many cases workers do not have a choice. You either join the union or you don't have a job. Unions also can prevent you form getting employment. My Aunt has a Masters in Education. She can't find a job because the school districts choose to hire less qualified applicants because they can pay them less. Because she has a certain level of schooling the union says they must pay her more. Because of that she can't find a job in a public school. Just another case of governement regulations that at one time meant well but are now doing more harm than good.

Yes, things are much different today--you can't get a livable wage in some sectors. But really your reasoning is flawed. On one hand you say that the company has a right to set whatever wages it wants, but then on the other you say that workers don't have the right to collective bargaining to ask for whatever wages they want. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Pikachu]

I LOVE how Walmart has been able to stave off unions. Anyone who doesn't like working there is free to leave. I REALLY don't see any issue with that.

I also love how the unions, with their extortion tactics, bit the big one in California a few years ago! Oh, the horror! 😀

 

[Stunt]

$13?!
That's not living wage! How are people supposed to afford their porsches? Obviously we need a $100 minimum wage so everyone in America can be rich...

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Stunt
$13?!
That's not living wage! How are people supposed to afford their porsches? Obviously we need a $100 minimum wage so everyone in America can be rich...

yeah, some people think they're entitled to be rich.

damn you entitlement society!

 

[saahmed]

$13 an hour is ridiculous for such a job. Has government forgotten that people have to start somewhere and move up? These retail jobs should be taken by young people, students and the like. They should be paid a low wage, it encourages them to move up the ladder. People who are still working there as middle-aged adults frankly should not be paid that much, they should go get an education. The governments should focus on making it easier for people to get an education that will allow them to progress and move up throughout their lives.

 

[Aisengard]

Because minimum wage doesn't mean you're supposed to live on it.

Oh wait, yes it does.

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually I do have a problem with unions. Unions were created to protect workers that were exploited by businesses during the industrial revolution. Unions did a lot of good back then and helped create fair and safe working conditions for US workers. Things are much different today. Unions often do more bad than good. Just ask General Motors what they think about unions. Unions drive up costs and often make it impossible to discipline or fire problem workers. Unions have become far too powerful.

In many cases workers do not have a choice. You either join the union or you don't have a job. Unions also can prevent you form getting employment. My Aunt has a Masters in Education. She can't find a job because the school districts choose to hire less qualified applicants because they can pay them less. Because she has a certain level of schooling the union says they must pay her more. Because of that she can't find a job in a public school. Just another case of governement regulations that at one time meant well but are now doing more harm than good.

Yes, things are much different today--you can't get a livable wage in some sectors. But really your reasoning is flawed. On one hand you say that the company has a right to set whatever wages it wants, but then on the other you say that workers don't have the right to collective bargaining to ask for whatever wages they want. You can't have it both ways.

If you can't get a livable wage then you need to change jobs, move to a more affordable area, negotiate more money from your employer or modify your lifestyle. The company does have a right to set wages. If a company sets wages too low then they people will choose to work elsewhere or the company gets less qualified workers. I never said that workers don't have the right to ask for higher wages, they certainly can do that. However, the employer should not have to give them more money just because they demand it. If employess feel they aren't treated fairly or paid enough they can work somewhere else. There are of course always exceptions, but for the most part the free market does a good job of regulating workers salaries and providing decent working conditions in this country.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fitzov

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.

no, the CEO's salary is set by the market. minimum wage is a price control in the form of a price floor imposed by government.

actually, the ceo's salary is decided by a board, not the market.

*smacks self on the head*

honestly, i think you need to take a remedial economics class before commenting. the baord is a market operator. they pay what they do becuase if they don't pay what they do, someone else will pay the guy to run a different company. they compete in the market for CEOs by offering more pay. thus, the market determines the pay.

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Because minimum wage doesn't mean you're supposed to live on it.

Oh wait, yes it does.

no, it doesn't. if you'd bothered reading the thread you'd see what the point of the minimum wage is.

 

[fitzov]

honestly, i think you need to take a remedial economics class before commenting. the baord is a market operator. they pay what they do becuase if they don't pay what they do, someone else will pay the guy to run a different company. they compete in the market for CEOs by offering more pay. thus, the market determines the pay.

lol. you need to reconsider your grasp of economics if you think that a ceo's salary is justified (or driven) by the market. simply look at one's salary and try to explain how that huge amount of money is "market-driven". the board is not limited in its decision for salary on anything other than what their coffers will allow.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fitzov
lol. you need to reconsider your grasp of economics if you think that a ceo's salary is justified (or driven) by the market. simply look at one's salary and try to explain how that huge amount of money is "market-driven". the board is not limited in its decision for salary on anything other than what their coffers will allow.

just because you think the price is too high doesn't mean that others don't think it's just right. there are very few people on the market with good management experience at large businesses, and they command a premium for their experience. maybe any old harvard MBA can run a large company, but if you're a director at a multi-billion dollar company, are you willing to risk it? the director will get sued if you pass on a seasoned professional to hire someone right out of the mail room.

and lets get real here, you're talking about probably the top 20 paid CEOs in america, maybe top 40.

 

[Jaskalas]

More wages, less taxes, less government, less patriot act, and wealth redistribution straight into our wages instead of some bloated government bureaucracy. :thumbsup:

Errr, did you follow all of that? 🙂 Props to Chicago, even if they only followed the first part of my tirade above.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fitzov
lol. you need to reconsider your grasp of economics if you think that a ceo's salary is justified (or driven) by the market. simply look at one's salary and try to explain how that huge amount of money is "market-driven". the board is not limited in its decision for salary on anything other than what their coffers will allow.

just because you think the price is too high doesn't mean that others don't think it's just right. there are very few people on the market with good management experience at large businesses, and they command a premium for their experience. maybe any old harvard MBA can run a large company, but if you're a director at a multi-billion dollar company, are you willing to risk it? the director will get sued if you pass on a seasoned professional to hire someone right out of the mail room.

and lets get real here, you're talking about probably the top 20 paid CEOs in america, maybe top 40.

yeap. while i think that man CEO's get some outragoues pay it is market drivin. if company X does not pay one of the top guys the money company Y will.

of course then the CEO will drive the business into the ground and jump ship with his "golden parashute". heh

ok ok im kidding. there are some damn good CEO's out there. last time i checked K-mart was doing well.

 

[KevinH]

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

Is it really $13 minimum in SF? Wow....

 

[BlancoNino]

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.

You're not supposed to. That's a major problem with this country.

 

[tooltime]

difficult subject its a good idea is your only getting min wage

 

[halik]

In related news, the number of employees in retail just dropped by 50%. It's silly how little do lawmakers know about economics.


$13/hr will almost double the labor cost to chicagoland stores. Here's what I predict will happen:

1) The stores affected will cut worker's hours and very likely terminate some of it's labor force
2) Wallmart will raise prices on certain items that they have competitive advatage on the spread (ie stuff that's relatively more cheap compared to other retailers)
3) Wallmart will absorb very miniscule increase in the additional cost, as their profit marging hovers around 2% *

*T L Friedman, The World is Flat, 2005

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Hello layoffs.

Chicago's message: "Poor people, leave!"

Originally posted by: fitzov
Oh boo hoo.

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

That's not the issue. The issue is that Walmart will leave Chicago, and none of those people will be getting a wage at all.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I'm in favor of anything that stunts the expansion of a sweatshop like Walmart.

the poster child socialist! he just can't cover up his opinions with fancy words like some can 🙂

 

[HombrePequeno]

I guess I came too late for the discussion about sweatshops in the third world...but I'd like to chime in anyway. Sure, sweatshops suck but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative (generally subsistence farming). Even though they make horrible wages, they at least make enough to feed themselves and maybe a little bit for savings. That's more than can be said for areas that aren't even developed enough to have sweatshops (the majority of Sub-Saharan Africe). If you asked any of the people in those areas which one they would rather be doing, working on a farm with no income or making some income in a sweatshop, I can guarantee you their answer will be the latter. Sweatshops may seem horrible to us but they provide opportunities and economic growth for developing countries. Take a look at China, India, and possibly Bangladesh in a few years. India didn't start out as a technical center. It got out of it's poverty trap by getting money to invest into farming and then allowed manufacturing to come in. Only then did people have enough money to give themselves a decent diet and also put their child through school. Could we pay them more? Sure but less of them would be employed. These are markets where generally there are vasts amount of people unemployed. They make a low wage because many others are willing to do their job. If you artificially raise the prices, you're putting more people out of a job. That's not very good for stability if you are increasing unemployment when it is already high. The book The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs shows the benefits of having sweatshops over subsistence farming.

As for this...well I think raising it to $13/hr is ridiculous. That's almost twice as much as it is here in Washington and we have the highest minimum wage of any state. Here's an interesting fact: the original minimum wage that Roosevelt set works out to only about $3.50/hr ($0.25/hr inflation adjusted). The purchasing power of that $3.50 may have been a little higher but I doubt it would have been worth the $5.15 now. It's funny that people bitch about the current federal minimum wage when it was a hell of a lot lower at it's inception. The minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage. You couldn't live on it then and you can't live on it now. How often does someone stay at the minimum wage level? It's not like a worker will have his wage permanently set at the federal minimum wage. That would be ludicrous. People get raises.

That's not to say that I don't agree with having a minimum wage. I think one should be set regionally with a different rate for minors and another for adults. It's stupid to try for a one-size-fits-all approach because conditions and purchasing power isn't the same all across the country.