Posted on 07/18/2006 4:26:26 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Connecticut politicians should monitor closely a controversy brewing 900 miles to the west. Wal-Mart and Target say they will scrap plans to build two dozen stores and create at least 10,000 jobs in Chicago over the next five years if the City Council fulfills its pledge to mandate wage and benefit floors for big-box retailers.
Target says it will pull out of the market entirely. The Home Depot and Circuit City are among other companies mulling whether to expand in Chicago in the face of the council's tyranny. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is so adamant about not being dictated to that it would be willing to finance a system of shuttle buses to transport Chicago residents to its suburban stores. The companies are willing to do all this knowing it will cost them billions in potential revenues.
As a sop to Big Labor, councilmen on July 26 are expected to approve a resolution establishing a "living wage" of $10 per hour -- 55 percent above the Illinois minimum -- plus $3 per hour in medical benefits for employees of retail companies with $1 billion or more in sales. In other words, Wal-Mart, Target, The Home Depot, etc.
The proposal is blatantly discriminatory and would have a domino effect on the city's economy. Yet councilmen are resolute. "It's an idle threat," one councilman said.
This is not whether big-box retailers can afford to pay their people more. Rather, it's the market value of the work the employees do. Most retail jobs are not meant to be careers. They give unskilled, untrained workers a start on the ladder of success. Dictating pay and benefits beyond the value of the work being done destroys market dynamics, not to mention vital entry-level jobs.
The controversy is relevant to Connecticut because one of the main platform planks of the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates is mandating that Wal-Mart pay its employees more and provide them with health benefits equivalent to those of public employees; if it doesn't, as New Haven Mayor John DeStefano is wont to say, the state will provide the coverage "and send Wal-Mart the bill."
If Connecticut goes there, don't be surprised if the bill comes back as undeliverable because Wal-Mart has left the state and taken its jobs with it.
The French-like legillators want to be in charge in Chicago and Connecticut.
The taxes and fees are so exhorbitant in Chicago and surrounding areas I can't imagine big businesses would want to go there to begin with.
DU is saying F'Em,let them Close..........
This action could cause a tidal wave of employers leaving a city that is clearly unfriendly to retailers.
Slightly off-topic but cigarettes cost $8.00/pack in most bars in CHicago. $8.00!!!!
Well, I remember 0.79 a pack in '81.
Competition's great, - except in the labor market.
The same liberals who complain about Microsoft's "monopoly" want competition in all other areas -- but not in the labor sector.
Prices - and wages - reflect demand, skills, and ability.
Get over it!
If you want a higher wage, invest in more skills.
Oh you kids. I remember $.25 per pack about 1958 and that's out of a machine, cheaper if you bought them in a store.
Hey, somebody is sure to come along and call me a whippersnapper!
How 'bout $.90 aboard ship and $1.00 per Carton in the PX back in the 60's?
I remember that too.
Back in May - of this year I paid $10 per carton of Winstons in St. Maarten.
I say the same thing. It's a free market. If Wal Mart and Target decide not to go there, and close existing stores, then that's fine.
$13.00 a pack in NYC bars.
Well, since I came to the United States in '81, claiming earlier memories in the US would be clintorrhoidal or kerryesque on my part.
Can you even smoke them in the bar?
"The taxes and fees are so exhorbitant in Chicago and surrounding areas I can't imagine big businesses would want to go there to begin with."
Chicago? Yes. Surrounding areas? Hell no.
Where do you live? Wyoming? Cause you don't know the Chicagoland area.
You're wasting your time trying to explain capitalism, economics and a free market enterprise here.
Aside from the obvious Socialist implications, the whole idea of a "living wage" is stupid anyway. What is a living wage for one person may not be for another. Which means that it's still "not enough" and they raise it again...and again...and again...and pretty soon, unemployment is 22% and a gallon of milk costs $21.75.
Tens of thousands of jobs gone because of stupid labor laws "requiring" a certain wage level. The law itself insures that rate is now zero when those jobs go away.
Didn't Chicago stop Wal-Mart a few years ago from building in a certain area so they built just outside the city in some neighboorhood? As I recall, they had about 300-350 job openings at the store over 3,000 showed up to apply even at those "low wages".
Liberals are so stupid they are lucky breathing is involuntary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.