Chicago introduces living-wage

[incanada1234 0]

is walmart's profits that thin that they can't afford to pay their employees a reasonable salary?

Maybe it's not so much they can't afford it as they just don't WANT to. It should be their choice, not the government's.

[Fuzzness 2]

is walmart's profits that thin that they can't afford to pay their employees a reasonable salary?

Maybe it's not so much they can't afford it as they just don't WANT to. It should be their choice, not the government's.

aren't there fair business practice laws? is walmart above the law?

[Minfay 0]

The ordinance that was passed effects only "big box" retailers -- those having over 90,000 square feet.

My question is: WHY should Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot have to pay their employees $10.00 an hour and the Best Buy or Office Max who are located right next door can still pay the minimum wage (which is $6.50 per hour). Something just isn't right.....

My husband is working at Target - in a suburb of Chicago -- for $8.00 an hour. We are approximately 6 miles from the Chicago border -- this ordinance does not effect us. How is my cost of living so much different from someone who lives 6 miles north of me?

I am not saying this is fair or unfair. 25 years ago I worked at Venture (which is now out of business but was a major competitor of Kmart). I was getting minimum wage -- 25 years ago I was making $4.15 an hour. That was alot of money to a kid in high school.

NOW -- $8.00 an hour is NOTHING!! But, at this point in our lives, my husband has no choice. Not right now. We are happy (and thankful) for the $8.00 an hour job. Could we live on the salary he is making -- NO WAY IN H@*%!!

[incanada1234 0]

is walmart's profits that thin that they can't afford to pay their employees a reasonable salary?

Maybe it's not so much they can't afford it as they just don't WANT to. It should be their choice, not the government's.

aren't there fair business practice laws? is walmart above the law?

What's unfair about wanting to pay employees what YOU decide to pay them, as opposed to the gov't? Go work your @ss off starting up a company and then let's see how you react when the government says, "Ok, you're making lots of money now. Start paying all your employees x amount more than what you're already paying them because we say so."

Edited July 27, 2006 by incanada1234

[Fuzzness 2]

The ordinance that was passed effects only "big box" retailers -- those having over 90,000 square feet.

My question is: WHY should Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot have to pay their employees $10.00 an hour and the Best Buy or Office Max who are located right next door can still pay the minimum wage (which is $6.50 per hour). Something just isn't right.....

My husband is working at Target - in a suburb of Chicago -- for $8.00 an hour. We are approximately 6 miles from the Chicago border -- this ordinance does not effect us. How is my cost of living so much different from someone who lives 6 miles north of me?

I am not saying this is fair or unfair. 25 years ago I worked at Venture (which is now out of business but was a major competitor of Kmart). I was getting minimum wage -- 25 years ago I was making $4.15 an hour. That was alot of money to a kid in high school.

NOW -- $8.00 an hour is NOTHING!! But, at this point in our lives, my husband has no choice. Not right now. We are happy (and thankful) for the $8.00 an hour job. Could we live on the salary he is making -- NO WAY IN H@*%!!

I agree... the minimum wage should be raised for everyone. but that won't ever happen.

[Minfay 0]

What's unfair about wanting to pay employees what YOU decide to pay them, as opposed to the gov't? Go work you @ss off starting up a company and then let's see how you react when the government says, "Ok, you're making lots of money now. Start paying all your employees x amount more than what you're already paying them because we say so."

I agree. The government should be allowed to set the minimum wage.....that I do believe. After that -- I DO NOT think they should be able to tell employeers how much to pay their employees above that amount.

That being said, minimum wage needs to be raised across the whole country....

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Wow, I'm gone for an hour and discussion is raging. Awesome!

I'd like to add a few comments about the impact of living wages. First, if a person has to work only one job instead of three, there will be additional job openings for those that could possibly lose their jobs.

Second, people who earn more money are also willling to spend more which is good for the economy and will drive up profits to the degree where manufacturers and retailers will offset the extra money spend on wages and possible make more than before. The problem with wages being depressed and people needing to work several jobs to get by is that they are less likely to go out and buy. If you look at the people who have been the most active consumers, it's usually not those who make minimum wage. It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Third, if employers pay decent wages, employees are happier with their jobs. Happy employees tend to stay at their jobs and to work harder. Less turnover in a work place leads to less money spent on training new employees and cuts longterm costs for employers. Furthermore, happier employees are attracting more customers.

As to prices, they will most likely rise, but they have been rising for the last few years anyway, with price inflation exceeding income gains. This means that people under the current minimum wage are buying less. A substantial wage raise, unlike those cosmetic raise in NC or SC, will offset price raise and inflation. Right now the minimum wage, when adjusted to inflation, is lower than ever before.

[incanada1234 0]

It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Yeah, and look where Ford (the company) is now.

[Alex+R 0]

Wow, I'm gone for an hour and discussion is raging. Awesome!

I'd like to add a few comments about the impact of living wages. First, if a person has to work only one job instead of three, there will be additional job openings for those that could possibly lose their jobs.

Second, people who earn more money are also willling to spend more which is good for the economy and will drive up profits to the degree where manufacturers and retailers will offset the extra money spend on wages and possible make more than before. The problem with wages being depressed and people needing to work several jobs to get by is that they are less likely to go out and buy. If you look at the people who have been the most active consumers, it's usually not those who make minimum wage. It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Third, if employers pay decent wages, employees are happier with their jobs. Happy employees tend to stay at their jobs and to work harder. Less turnover in a work place leads to less money spent on training new employees and cuts longterm costs for employers. Furthermore, happier employees are attracting more customers.

As to prices, they will most likely rise, but they have been rising for the last few years anyway, with price inflation exceeding income gains. This means that people under the current minimum wage are buying less. A substantial wage raise, unlike those cosmetic raise in NC or SC, will offset price raise and inflation. Right now the minimum wage, when adjusted to inflation, is lower than ever before.

I was just digging around my computer for an article that argues exactly that.

Not only does it make good economic sense to raise the minimum wage, it is just compassionate. Shouldn't we all be trying to stop Americans from facing poverty? I thought that was a common goal til I read some of the posts on this thread!

[Fuzzness 2]

Wow, I'm gone for an hour and discussion is raging. Awesome!

I'd like to add a few comments about the impact of living wages. First, if a person has to work only one job instead of three, there will be additional job openings for those that could possibly lose their jobs.

Second, people who earn more money are also willling to spend more which is good for the economy and will drive up profits to the degree where manufacturers and retailers will offset the extra money spend on wages and possible make more than before. The problem with wages being depressed and people needing to work several jobs to get by is that they are less likely to go out and buy. If you look at the people who have been the most active consumers, it's usually not those who make minimum wage. It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Third, if employers pay decent wages, employees are happier with their jobs. Happy employees tend to stay at their jobs and to work harder. Less turnover in a work place leads to less money spent on training new employees and cuts longterm costs for employers. Furthermore, happier employees are attracting more customers.

As to prices, they will most likely rise, but they have been rising for the last few years anyway, with price inflation exceeding income gains. This means that people under the current minimum wage are buying less. A substantial wage raise, unlike those cosmetic raise in NC or SC, will offset price raise and inflation. Right now the minimum wage, when adjusted to inflation, is lower than ever before.

that's a very "liberal" way of thinking. you better watch it before they start calling you a communist pig and call for your deportation.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Yeah, and look where Ford (the company) is now.

The decline at Ford came after the point when they started cutting wages and moving production abroad. They abandoned Henry Ford's model in order to increase corporate profits....

that's a very "liberal" way of thinking. you better watch it before they start calling you a communist pig and call for your deportation.

Well, let them try!

[hockeygal 0]

I agree. The government should be allowed to set the minimum wage.....that I do believe. After that -- I DO NOT think they should be able to tell employeers how much to pay their employees above that amount.

I agree too - the government should be looking at how much a person needs to earn in order to pay rent and buy food in specific cities, and set a minimum wage accordingly. I don't think they should be deciding based on the business, who should pay more.

[Minfay 0]

Not only does it make good economic sense to raise the minimum wage, it is just compassionate. Shouldn't we all be trying to stop Americans from facing poverty? I thought that was a common goal til I read some of the posts on this thread!

I think it is/was a common goal -- UNTIL -- you start taking money out of the "powers that be" pockets.

I "worked" in a two person office. The "other" person quit. Do you think I got a raise since I am now doing both jobs? NO!! Are we going to hire a replacement? NO!! No part of that "extra" salary is coming anywhere near me. Am I bitter? YES!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do people hate walmart:

1) They force wholesellers to keep wholesale prices down. For example the price to make a DVD or CD is way down. But the recording and movie industry increasingly want to charge more for a CD album or DVD. Walmart sets a target price of like $10 for a CD and $19 for a movie. This makes Hollywood mad because they won't make millions of dollars--but instead they will make just millions of dollars.

2) Walmart is open 24X7 in a lot of communities. Mom & Pop stores that are open 9 to 5 monday through friday hate it because the inconvience and lack of selection has forced customers to go to Walmart, where Walmart enjoys the Wholesale price advantage.

3) Walmart when possible tries to prevent unions. While unions should be allowed to form--many unions just simply price themselves out of the market. I remember how in parts of California the starting wage for a bag boy is $12 for a unionized bagger. Walmart, Kroger and other large retail and grocery chains have had to contend with unions slandering them over starting wages. Isn't $12 excessive just to put groceries in a bag? I think you will see more self-checkout and self-bagging in more retailers as wages increase and customer convience and speed and the use of debit and credit cards continues to grow.

4) Walmart won't sell CD music with explicit lyrics. ACLU and others including hollywood people have complained about this--but where is Walmart located--mostly bible-belt and other conservative regions. I have yet to see a Walmart in the inner-city, so 2 Live Crew and the F-word every other lyric ain't likely to sell anyway.

No. This is why people complain about the world's largest retailer:

Wal-Mart Admits Public Health Care is a “Better Value”

President and CEO Lee Scott said in 2005, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums." [Transcript Lee Scott Speech 4/5/05]

Your tax dollars subsidize Wal-Mart's growth

* The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.

* A Wal-Mart official stated that “it is common” for the company to request subsidies “in about one-third of all [retail] projects.” This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. [“Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth,” Good Job First, May 2004]

Wal-Mart buys much of its merchandise from China

Wal-Mart highlights its American suppliers but imports 60 percent of its goods.

Wal-Mart reports that it purchased $18 billion of goods from China in 2004.

Wal-Mart was responsible for about 1/10th of the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2005. [“U.S. Stock Investors Wary of Analyst `Yuan Plays': Taking Stock, Bloomberg, 7/1/05]

If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China’s eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada. [China Business Weekly, 12/02/2004]

Many of Wal-Mart's “American Suppliers” actually manufacture most or all of their products in China

An example of an “American Supplier” is Hasbro, headquartered in Rhode Island. Today, Wal-Mart is the largest purchaser of Hasbro products—accounting for 21 percent of all Hasbro goods or more than $600 million in sales. But Hasbro reports, “We source production of substantially all of our toy products and certain of our game products through unrelated manufacturers in various Far East countries, principally China.” Hasbro specifies that “the substantial majority of our toy products are manufactured in China.” [2004 Hasbro 10-K filed with the SEC]

Wal-Mart closes down stores and departments that unionize

Wal-Mart closed its store in Jonquierre, Quebec in April 2005 after its employees received union certification. The store became the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America when 51 percent of the employees at the store signed union cards. [Washington Post, 4/14/05]

In December 2005, the Quebec Labour Board ordered Wal-Mart to compensate former employees of its store in Jonquiere Quebec. The Board ruled that Wal-Mart had improperly closed the store in April 2005 in reprisal against unionized workers. [Personnel Today, 12/19/05]

In 2000, when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its in-store meatcutting company-wide. [Pan Demetrakakes, "Is Wal-Mart Wrapped in Union Phobia?" Food & Packaging 76 (August 1, 2003).]

....the list goes on and on. But yes, keep believing in your conspiracy theories that people are just mad at Walmart for being so 'competitive'.

[incanada1234 0]

The decline at Ford came after the point when they started cutting wages and moving production abroad. They abandoned Henry Ford's model in order to increase corporate profits....

Huh? Cutting wages? When was that? I have family members that work for Ford and let me tell you, they are set for LIFE. They make a crapload of money (and of course, they're unionized).