Chicago inacts Living Wage ordinance

[chequita guevara]

Not really. All I did is state that there is such a strong correlation between raising the minimum wage and following economic growth that it would be rather unlikely for there to be no causation.

[Kuciwalker]

Unless, of course, the minimum wage rise occurs during a period of growth, making it obvious that any causation is from the growth the the wage rise rather than the other way around.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, you said the fact that the economy has been sputtering now gives more credence to your theory that increasing the min wage leads to greater economic growth.



And it is absurdly silly to claim something has such a strong correlation that it is unlikely there is no causation. For example, there is an very strong correlation between the 1st Tuesday in November and US election day. Does this mean that the causes of elections are 1st Tuesdays in November? Obviously not.

And I didn't say there was no causation, just that it goes the other way (economic growth --> raising the min wage) .

[chequita guevara]

No, it's not. We have to look at specific instances, but let's take the most recent. The min wage going from 3.35 to 4.25 happened before any significant job growth occurred. Afterwards, job growth occurred. Then the min wage, which had been schedualed at the same time as the 4.25 increase, kicked in and the job market went gang-busters.

Now, officially we were in an economic recovery before the 1st rise in min wage, but it wasn't until after the rise in min wage that the number of jobs really began to take off. So which caused what? It's true that if we couldn't have afforded the wage increase, it would have stalled the recovery, but it's also true that the bosses weren't sharing, and that once they were forced to share, there was more money moving around, more things being bought, and a greater need for more employees.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, you said the fact that the economy has been sputtering now gives more credence to your theory that increasing the min wage leads to greater economic growth.

I said would tend to lend credence. To use you logic in spite of my declaration it doesn't apply if A = B that -A = -B.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The min wage going from 3.35 to 4.25 happened before any significant job growth occurred. Afterwards, job growth occurred.

officially we were in an economic recovery before the 1st rise in min wage

You answered you own question. We were already in a period of recovery. It must have been a miracle that before 1938 (first min wage) that the US ever had job growth, eh? . Act of God, perhaps?

Though I also wonder if you are trying to pin the internet boom on min wage increases .

It's true that if we couldn't have afforded the wage increase, it would have stalled the recovery, but it's also true that the bosses weren't sharing, and that once they were forced to share, there was more money moving around, more things being bought, and a greater need for more employees.

I wonder if you noticed that in a lot of areas wages were above min wage already before the increase. In '97-'98, McDonalds in my area was hiring people for $7/hr (not anymore, of course). If offering jobs at almost $2 above min wage is 'not sharing' then I don't think the min wage is either .

In boom economic times, demand for labor is greater, hence wages go up. Nothing to do with 'not sharing', like owners don't want to make more money or something.

[Lancer]

Great news for the little guy out there doing the dirty work and living on ALPO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said would tend to lend credence.

Same difference. You just added a more hesitant qualifer to your overall point, which in no changes the fact that you believe such.

[snoopy369]

This, sadly, has nothing to do with raising the minimum wage.

This is entirely a political "bread & circuses" aimed at gaining a few people votes, and attempting to sabotage Richard Daley's chances of winning re-election next year, as he's on record opposing this measure, and may well veto it (for the first time in nearly a decade). (I don't know if he's vetoed it, signed it, or not yet seen the approved measure, been at work...)

This won't have a significant effect on Chicago, as there are very few businesses in the city limits that qualify as "big-box" - target, home depot, maybe best buy? - and in fact there are no Wal-Marts in the city limits although they were talking about building one - mayhap they won't now.

Point is, this won't be worth jack $%$# to the city, monetarily, as we're talking maybe 1000 employees or something in a city of 8 million (metro area). It'll likely mean fewer jobs [although also not a significant number], and a bunch more politicians in the limelight for a few weeks.

The thing that irks me the most, is the title of the bill. "Living Wage". Bah. $6.25 an hour is a living wage; a single person living on a fairly low budget has no problem living on that wage. I lived in the city on $6.75-7.25 an hour for about a year, and I have student loans and such.

On the other hand, most large companies pay more than minimum wage once you've worked for more than just a short time there - usually you get a raise in the first six months - and I'd wonder if Target or WalMart don't pay more than minimum wage in the city [not $10 certainly, but i'd not be surprised to see $7 an hour at least].

Compound that with the fact that anyone over 30 shouldn't be making minimum wage if they're an even remotely competent employee, unless they spent all their time a) behind bars or b) unemployed - the only people that have an excuse IMO are former housewives left by their (ex-)husbands, and they deserve government support if anyone does. Anyone earning bare minimum wage is either new to the workforce, and should work for a bit to earn experience, but afterwards will earn significantly more, or is totally incompetent and moving from job to job unti that company figures out their incompetence...

"Living Wage" is the most absurd, blatantly biased title for a bill that I've ever heard. If $6.25 isn't a living wage, then why don't we raise the overall minimum wage? Raising it for the "rich" of the business world is an entirely political, meaningless bill that will accomplish nothing other than ensure that Chicago is one of the few areas where you are forced to shop at overpriced, crappy stores unless you have a car and can drive to the suburbs - meaning the poor, the people who this bill is SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING, will just be screwed YET AGAIN.

Bah. F$#%ing politicians and short-sighted voters.

[Lancer]

Besides, I hear ALPO is coming out with some new flavors.

[:) Smiley]

Hmm, looks like there's a trend going on, the state of Maryland recently passed a law mandating companies employing more than 10,000 people in the state to provide a higher level of healthcare benefits.

[snoopy369]

Healthcare benefits i'd have no problem with Sadly, the trend is to go after 'deep pockets' and faceless companies. If there's a problem, fix it, but don't just target the politically opportune ... that just proves that you're either not fixing the problem, or that you're just playing the political game.

I want to move to a meritocracy, or failing that, a straight up monarchy

[snoopy369]

Now this is interesting... apparently the Wal-Mart opening in Chicago's Austin neighborhood - our first Wal-Mart in the city limits - will be paying 9.92 an hour to its employees. And giving health insurance and whatnot to full-time employees.

http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2005/9-2005/wage/wal-mart.htm

So maybe Wal-Mart isn't that evil after all, hmm?

[Berzerker]

The measure requires mega-retailers with over $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet to pay workers at least $10 an hour in wages plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010.

I'd just use smaller buildings but the pols would just re-write the law

if my labor is worth $8 an hour, what happens when my employer has to pay me $10 or let me go?

[Lancer]

They have cut jobs in these stores to the very minimum. They would have to raise prices.