Chicago inacts Living Wage ordinance

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's what people usually call blackmail

I see it as the other way around. The City is saying... "If you want to do business in the city, you will do it our way or no way:

If Chicago really wants to take the high moral ground, maybe they should be forcing ALL the business to pay a living wage, and not just Big Box retailers...

[Drake Tungsten]

If Chicago really wants to take the high moral ground

When has Chicago ever been interested in taking the moral high ground? That ain't the Chicago way...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I want to put $X in the consumers' pockets by raising wages.

You want to put $X in the consumers' pockets by keeping wages steady agumented with govt welfare.

Why does your $X cause less inflation (in any) than my $X?

It doesn't. I'm not selling my scheme as a magical fountain of growth.

You want to put $X in fewer consumers' pockets by costing the rest their jobs. Unemployment is inefficient. Worse, those people are going to be getting government money anyway. Better for them to get government money and be productive than get government money and be unproductive.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
When has Chicago ever been interested in taking the moral high ground? That ain't the Chicago way...

True enough... but I see some thumbs up posted... based on the ole "screw corporate america" and how this is great for the people. In reality, Chicago will probably lose some jobs that would help some of the poorer unemployed sections of the city, and the tax revenue and jobs will go somewhere else. This isn't going to help anybody in Chicago, only hurt!

If the "living wage" is such a great idea, the people behind it should be pushing it for all businesses. To force one pay rate for big box retailers and not other businesses is just stupid and counter productive.

[Drake Tungsten]

If the "living wage" is such a great idea, the people behind it should be pushing it for all businesses. To force one pay rate for big box retailers and not other businesses is just stupid and counter productive.

Agreed.

[MRT144]

on the other hand id rather have people shooting heroin than working at walmart

[Ming]

You are welcome to choose shooting heroin over working at Walmart, but I'm not sure many people would join you

[Adam Smith]

I'm sure Walmart's lawyers will eventually point out that a federal judge recently struck down a similar law here in Maryland.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How did Wal-Mart "oppose it"? They just said they'd redirect their focus outside the city to the suburbs.

It's not like they've ever really had a presence in the city to begin with. They just opened their first store there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The minimum wage usually rises in times of economic expansion, when we can afford it and it doesn't do that much harm. The harm comes when expansion slows. The minimum wage is harmful exactly in proportion to its effectiveness.

Actually, it usually preceeds an expansion. The times it doesn't is when it's passed as a tiered increase, i.e., an immediate raise, and another one in a year, and another one in two years, etc.

It's true that correlation isn't causation, but there's an extremely high correlation to raising min wage and a growth period following. There are likely a number of reason for this, but given that there was no min wage increase this time around and that the "recovery" has been rather anemic, I think that would tend to lend some more credence to the theory that min wage increases help spur recovery and job growth.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I'm sure Walmart's lawyers will eventually point out that a federal judge recently struck down a similar law here in Maryland.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/...bi_ge/wal_mart

IANAL, so maybe Imran can answer the question of whether or not there are ERISA problems with this law....

[Kuciwalker]

I highly doubt it. It doesn't look like it has anything to do with benefits. OTOH, if it's as targeted as the MD law was, couldn't there by 14th Amendment concerns?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, it usually preceeds an expansion. The times it doesn't is when it's passed as a tiered increase, i.e., an immediate raise, and another one in a year, and another one in two years, etc.

And an expansion preceeds it. Hell, it is just as valid to say that if the economy grows it causes a min wage increase!

It's true that correlation isn't causation, but there's an extremely high correlation to raising min wage and a growth period following. There are likely a number of reason for this, but given that there was no min wage increase this time around and that the "recovery" has been rather anemic, I think that would tend to lend some more credence to the theory that min wage increases help spur recovery and job growth.

The logic of a commie is a strange thing sometimes (if you are scoring at home: A = B does not mean ~A = ~B, of course this is assuming A = B in the first place).

[q=Timexwatch] so maybe Imran can answer the question of whether or not there are ERISA problems with this law....[/q]

Since there are no employee benefits involved, so I don't see where ERISA would come into this.

[chequita guevara]

Philosphical logic doesn't apply to reality often, Imran. In this case, you need to use epidemiology. The alternative would be to do a controled study.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyway you slice it, that statement was 'the mother of all reaches'. Its like something an anti-Ned would have said.