Chicago inacts Living Wage ordinance

[Berzerker]

so the cost of living would go up, funny (ha ha) how the little people end up taking the hit for the increase, not big business... Well, they take a hit too, unaffected businesses dont have to pay the increase.

[notyoueither]

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

But, how does a city do this?

[Sava]

Uhhmm... am I supposed to cheer for this? Honestly, what does this accomplish? If you are stuck working at Wal-Mart for whatever they pay ($7.50, or now $10 with this new "living wage"), there is no way you can support a family on that amount of money. Hell, I could barely even support myself on that amount of money.

Working at Wal-Mart for that amount of money should not be seen as a permanent career. Anyone who relies on that level of income is going to be poor. I think it's a terrible idea to force the government to legislate income just because people cannot get better jobs, work to get an education, and work towards making themselves available for better opportunities.

Those types of jobs should not pay the same as other positions, other professions. People should be motivated to improve their status in life. If there is no incentive to do so and even if we give people great benefits and pay people $40-50k a year to work at Wal-Mart, hell... what the hell incentive is there to go to school and get a degree and get a better job? **** going to school... I'm going to get a job at Wal-Mart!


The solution isn't to pay people "living wages"... it's to provide everyone the equal opportunity to succeed... low cost or (GOD FORBID) free education for those willing to work and get good grades. Instead of forcing employers to pay extra money for unskilled labor, why not have no minimum wage at all (or at least, keep it low), but instead, put money into education and health care (by adjusting/reforming the tax code)?

I think that it would be more productive because it would allow the economy to function more efficiently because you wouldn't have the government interfering with the cost of labor (allowing market forces to regulate costs and prices), and the government could possibly take in more revenue by progressive taxation (not necessarily by higher taxes, but by higher revenue due to a more efficient economy).

Younger people from lower income levels would be able to take advantage of better education opportunities and they could improve their families' status. We could also provide adult education programs to help train unskilled adult workers for other professions.

I'd prefer such programs to the idea of a "living wage" because it forces people to force change in their own lives rather than allowing them to become dependent on these McJobs and Walmart positions that should not be jobs where you should be trying to support a family.


But wait, that's an original thought. I forgot. We are all supposed to be tools here and cheer the LIVING WAGE.

Carry on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Sava]it's to provide everyone the equal opportunity to succeed... low cost or (GOD FORBID) free education for those willing to work and get good grades. [/q]



Health Care should be heavily subsidized (mostly free for everything but the experimental treatments and stuff) and Education should be subsidized greatly as well, to prevent kids from graduating with thousands upon thousands of dollars in loan payments.

[Japher]

yeah, whatever, Sava... you don't even have a degree.

you're not allowed to have original thoughts

so tell us who you stole that from

[Sava]

YOUR FACE

[Japher]

now you're just being rude

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

And got smacked down too

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




Health Care should be heavily subsidized (mostly free for everything but the experimental treatments and stuff) and Education should be subsidized greatly as well, to prevent kids from graduating with thousands upon thousands of dollars in loan payments.

It's really scary... you and I see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

My theory: we both come from immigrant families (for me, my mom's side, which has been the strongest influence in my life) with (judging from what I know of your situation in life) strong work ethics but also, with a strong sense of balancing that work ethic with a sense of fairness as far as society is concerned.

Imran


And I completely agree with you about kids graduating with loan payments. I think it's in society's best interest to spread the burden of education out and let individuals complete their education without having to worry about the burden of debt.

I'm almost thinking that professional sports should be used to fund education... considering that college sports is essentially a minor league and developmental league for professional sports, why can't professional sports be used for something more productive than mindless entertainment? Considering the scandals and problems with performance enhancing drugs, the amount of taxpayer money that gets used for building stadiums, the anti-trust exemptions that these sports get. I think it's about time we, as a society, examine how we allow the owners of these franchises to make enormous amounts of money and at the expense of the public's interest.

The "public" (us, or the government... both, I supposed... "we the people") owns the airwaves that sports games are broadcasted on. They get leased to these companies. The public provides funding to build many of these stadiums (for all the major sports). We are the ones buying the tickets, going to the games...

I think many people are fed up with the bull**** that goes on in sports, and if you put it to a vote, I think the results would overwhelmingly be in favor of this.

I'm not sure what specifically I am proposing here. I'm just saying there is an excessive amount of money being made at the expensive of the public's interest here, and that we should examine ways of using it for the public's good rather than allowing a select few to continue to profit excessively (in many cases) using airtime leased to them by the public and stadiums built using public money. These franchises may be privately owned, but they cannot make their money without the use of public resources. And IMO, professional sports should contribute more to society, in this day and age... considering the excessive amount of wealth that industry generates.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher
now you're just being rude

I thought it was a compliment

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Sava]you and I see eye to eye on a lot of issues.[/q]

Take it back!

Hell, Sava, when you are sober, you tend to make a lot of sense .

But just as I was thinking that this comes along:

[q=Sava]I'm almost thinking that professional sports should be used to fund education[/q]

You were so close too .

Though, realistically, I don't think most people are fed up with sports. After all, fans are perfectly willing to pay for tickets and memorabilia. And owners, really, are just taking advantage of dumb people who are willing to give them money for stadiums and whatnot. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Just have city mayors refuse to spend on stadiums (but, of course, some other dumbass in another town will try to entice them). And you can always charge more for public airwaves... though as long as you do it for everyone.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But just as I was thinking that this comes along:

Well, I am capable of seperating my love of sports from what I think is best for society. Also, I think I love sports (as in the purity of the sport) more than what sports has become (with the money).

And please don't interpret my statements as to think I am applying them to you or what I may think your love of sports is. It's not my intent.

[q=Sava]I'm almost thinking that professional sports should be used to fund education[/q]

You were so close too .

Though, realistically, I don't think most people are fed up with sports. After all, fans are perfectly willing to pay for tickets and memorabilia. And owners, really, are just taking advantage of dumb people who are willing to give them money for stadiums and whatnot. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Just have city mayors refuse to spend on stadiums (but, of course, some other dumbass in another town will try to entice them). And you can always charge more for public airwaves... though as long as you do it for everyone.

Well, you have to keep in mind that the group of people that make up "sports fans" is not the same as "most people". The segment of people that are sports fans is significantly smaller than the general population... even smaller is the segment of people that are "die-hard fans" of their respective teams. The general population, I would say, is probably more fed up with the crap that is going on in sports than most sports fans.

And again, I don't have any specific proposals in mind. I just think that with the amount of excessive wealth being generated by sports, their unique status as anti-trust exempt businesses, their relationship with college athletics, and their use of public resources to generate that wealth, that professional sports should be used (as an asset) to do more for the greater public good.

Why would you be opposed to this notion of mine? The people who would lose out are the owners of sports teams. The market will sort itself out (in terms of ticket prices and such). The downside of not taking advantage of this "revenue source" (from the public's POV) is that we pay more in taxes to fund education and/or health care.

So the only question is, do you want to pay more in taxes, or do you want to want to look at ways to generate more revenue from professional sports for funding education?

Explain to me how you would object to this ideologically (or otherwise). I'm not really one for ideology. I just look at things and try come up with a solution for a problem. But if you have any objections to anything I've said, explain to me why.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just think that with the amount of excessive wealth being generated by sports, their unique status as anti-trust exempt businesses, their relationship with college athletics, and their use of public resources to generate that wealth, that professional sports should be used (as an asset) to do more for the greater public good.

'Excessive' wealth doesn't play into for me. The wealth is taxed, so that takes using that for society's benefit. Only MLB has an anti-trust exemption, and interestingly enough, that is probably the reason their teams don't move very often at all. I also don't see what it matters that they have a relationship with college athletes. Businesses have relationships with college scholars. So what? As for using public resources, blame the numbnuts that gave it to them.

So the only question is, do you want to pay more in taxes, or do you want to want to look at ways to generate more revenue from professional sports for funding education?

The former. I hate attempts at social engineering to punish only one narrowly defined group of people (in this case 'sports team owners') for issues unrelated to how much income them make (taxes account for that), in order to achieve increased revenue.

Everyone benefits, everyone should pay. Shouldn't single out some group and say "Hey, we don't like that you are making so much by doing X, so we want you to pay for this thing". If you want to 'punish sports owners' raise the tax rate on the top percentile.

[Arrian]

Sava & Imran

Living Wage - well intentioned... but I don't think it's the answer.

Sava's idea about sports... I've long wanted the anti-trust exemption removed. Beyond that, I dunno.

-Arrian

[Sava]

There are also going to be other side effects of messing with the economics of professional sports in order to fund education. Not only will it affect owners' revenue, but also player's salaries. Though, what are they going to do? Cry about it? Stop playing a game for a living?

IMO, if it means less egomaniacal asshats in sports and more people willing to play for say $1-2 million a year instead of $10-20 million a year, then so be it. And this is just an example. I have no idea what it would mean for players' salaries or revenue. Nor would I think it would be necessary for the government to regulate such things. The government would take it's cut, and the market would sort itself out.


When looking at society as a whole, what professions receive what kind of pay, it's important to talk about what our values are and how we want to go about encouraging and reinforcing those values. Many people don't want to see the government dictating wages. And I agree... there is no need for that. But on the other hand, there are many people who disagree with certain professions with incomes in the multi-million dollar range (specifically, professional athletes). Personally, I think it's silly to be paid that much to play a game. However, it's the result of market forces... people going to the games, being willing to pay the ticket prices to see the product on the field (or the court). If you cap the salaries, the owners get the revenue. But there is another alternative... let the public (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) reap the rewards. Instead of letting a corporate entity take our money and profit from provide entertainment (using public resources), let them make a significant amount of money, but have the rest get put back into education and/or health care.

That is where we can combine market forces with the same "good will" of doing something for the public good.

It is not government regulation of the economy. The market still functions. But instead of having that capital being used for a less efficient purpose, it gets put towards educating and training the workforce, which eventually, will lead to people getting better jobs, generating more capital, spending more, and making our economy even stronger!

If we can find ways to improve the efficiency of our economy in other industries by doing this, providing services to the public, we can make our economy so much stronger. It is really what we need to do to compete globally. America is lagging behind. Things like "a living wage" are not going to do much to solve the problem. And allowing people to generate excessive amounts of wealth don't make things better either. When wealth is concentrated, the economy is weaker because the spending power of the individual consumer is weaker. And in addition to that, when we don't have programs that allow unskilled workers to become educated, and when we have an increasingly number of people entering the job market as unskilled workers and people graduating with debt, our economy is much weaker than it could be than if we were using that excessive wealth for much more productive purposes.