Secrets of the City

terrible decison on the part of chicago’s city council. all they’re doing is letting this revenue go across the street to Calumet Park. $23 million in tax revenue that these chicago neighborhoods desperately need. just so they can take the moral high road and stick it to the man. ridiculous.

“”I’m depressed. Calumet Park has land right across the street they can develop. Our development will just sit there for another century. I don’t need more housing. I need sales tax revenue and jobs. How do I pull my community out of the slump that it’s in? How do we get a rebirth? Sales tax revenue. That’s how.”" – chicago alderman Carrie Austin

The wage is also not $10 an hour. It starts at $9.25 in 2007 and after 180 days you must give the employee a raise of $1.50 an hour for part timers. These would increase every year to 2010 to a starting wage of $10 with a raise of $3 an hour after 180 days.

Also the store has to match the wage with additional benefits or wage so in 2010 people would be making up to $26.00 as a part time employee in wages and benefits. I doubt any retailer could survive paying entry level 16 yo’s that sort of salary.

Link to FAQ sheet on Living Wage Law

I read that wrong. The supplement is the extra $1.50 after 180 days.
So the combined salary and benefits would be $10.75 in 2007 growing to $13 by 2010. Doesn’t seem that bad that way but still a lot for a 16 yo without a high school diploma.

Stop picking on Target. The CEO only got a $48.00 an hour raise this year. Of course that doesn’t figure in the other direct compensation, which makes it probably more like $8 million a year. Well, and then that doesn’t include the $26 million in stock options for the year (so far).

So I guess that’s a $16,394 an hour raise.

This is, like, relevant, and stuff, to this thread:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082906D

LINK

That dude might have had something valid to say, but I couldn’t make it through the name-calling and other crap in that article to actually finish reading it.

Gee, government controlled wages worked so well in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe I don’t see how anyone could object?

Hasn’t Target received waiviers of living-wage ordinances here in Minnesota in the past?

maybe they could give some of that $2MM/week to the charity of letting their employees live above the poverty line?

Tar-Mart? Yo. But if the shoe fits…

It would be better if the state of Illinois could just raise the minimum wage, or whatever county includes Chicago, so Target couldn’t just move a development across the street. However given the latest news about wages falling in relation to buying power, and given how long it’s been since the minimum wage was increased (it certainly hasn’t been COLA-adjusted) I can’t fault Chicago for much of anything.

Target: be Minnesotan. Be good.

Hey! I know! Let’s make Walmart increase their expenses so the poor people who patronize them have to reach deeper to buy toothpaste and toilet paper! Yeah, that’s the ticket! That’ll teach those capitalists a thing or two.

If the Left knew anything about economics, the cliche would be “rich democrats” and not “rich republicans.” There are rich democrats of course, but their wealth is either inherited or it was “earned” by singing and dancing. Not too many rich democrats came by their wealth by actually creating anything.

who says that prices have to go up because low-end wages do?

I’m trying to come up with an original thought but can’t so instead I spend my time rejurgitating cliched talking points from the Rush show I just listened to.

because, um, the only goal one should have in life is … getting rich? what?

but then when problems like crime come back to bite the rich on the ass because they allowed entire populations to fester in poverty to serve their own greed, they cry foul and run away?

that’s cool, yeah. if we’d stop worshipping the almighty Lord Dollar, maybe we could actually address a lot of social ills in our country. Not that it will happen anytime soon, though.

Wal-Mart: Always Low Wages. ALWAYS.

but while we’re talking about low wages/low prices, let’s not leave out ‘affordable luxury’ and the american credit scam either. hand in hand, people!

I’m continually amused at how some people despise wealth, while at the same time say that society’s biggest problem is the lack thereof.

then again, maybe those people are arguing for a little equity in the system.

I’m trying to come up with an original thought but can’t so instead I spend my time rejurgitating cliched talking points from the Rush show I just listened to.

That’s OK. I can only communicate in T-shirt slogans.

but then again, maybe not.

hey, i’m certainly not rich, but for some reason, I can’t help defend a system where a U.S. CEO makes 475 times the amount of an average U.S. worker.

We have by far more wealth inequity than any other industrialized nation on earth. It’s the American way!

and since Republicans are paid for by big business, and I am Republican, I have no choice but to defend big business that are sucking dry the average person. I must defend big business and the almighty god, I mean dollar.

But then again, when the government starts handing out jobs and money like they do in Cuba or China, then you’ll have all the equity you want. Oh well.

no one is actually talking about becoming Cuba or China, but I like to throw in extreme examples. It’s not a valid argument, but all I have to do is say that, and call people communists, and I win everytime!

Mark Dayton … now THERE’S big business for you. Me? I’m just yer typical self-employed libertarian who eats democrats for lunch … when I find one who doesn’t make me ill.

Yep, eat ‘em for lunch, I do. I actually wrote that.

tatemani = too too many?

Let’s face it, it’s a movement started and sustained by labor unions. Target isn’t a bad company and neither is Wal-Mart. They pay their employees what they’re worth. When was the last time you say a minimum wage worker at Wal-Mart who was doing something worth $10/hour? But they aren’t union employees and big labor can’t stand that.

This not to mention the question no one has yet to answer: If $10, why not $15? Why not $20?

Living wages ordinances do nothing in the end. In order to make a profit, Target would have to raise prices – which penalizes the same folks that this law purports to give a raise to.

I highly doubt that being forced to pay this wage increase is going to create more jobs – in fact, I think it’s going to take jobs away.

I’m also fairly confident that Target won’t be able to pay these wages and make a profit without making a substantial increase in prices in order to at least break even.

Matt

Matt, what are you basing your analysis on? You think it’s going to raise prices, take jobs away, back it up.

And Kevin, now you’re thinking, why not $20? (but I’m glad I now know someone who is a qualified judge of what people are worth)

Well apparantly the Chicago city council thinks its residents are worth $10.

I’ve seen the chicago city council. They couldn’t spell economics much less understand it.

I’m a libertarian, so I say let unreguated markets do the work. Then, when people balk at getting paid a minute $5.15 minimum wage and go on welfare instead, I’ll bitch about that. I mean, my grandma made it by on $5.15 in 1932, why can’t they now?

Whoever is posting the fake extra responses as tatemani, cut it out. It’s really lame. If you have point to make that is contrary to tatemani’s, get some guts and put your own username in the box.

I don’t think we should even have a federal minimum wage. And child labor laws: communism at its finest!

I wish that whoever decided to impersonate me was at least a half-way intelligent person. But on the other hand, at least she makes it easy for people to spot the imposter and for that I suppose I should be thankful.

exactly, kwatt. the chicago city council thinks their residents are worth a mere $10, not $23million.

Actually, now that I reread the posts by “tatemani” I see that they are all equally absurd. I had no idea I was such a misguided idiot.

Trust me, you are.

Here’s an alternate plan: Pass a law that mandates every business in Chicago lower it’s prices 25% on everything. Then the wage increase wouldn’t be needed. (Oh …. don’t forget to lower local taxes too)

Is our home-town company turning Wal-Mart? They still give $2 million a week to charity.

And they still make thousands in political contributions–all to the Republican party. For which social justice issues aren’t any kind of priority.

That’s cause social justice is just a made up term you use to keep your constituencies in line cycle after cycle.

No no no. Social justice is code for when the government gives you free stuff. I know because I grew up in the ghetto.

you two are gonna have whatever opinions you have. but at least know that many people that have selflessly dedicated their lives to helping other people would find your characterization of social justice as “made up” and “when the government gives you free stuff” highly offensive, completely inaccurate and utterly ignorant.

would the people that selfishly spend their life making a living to support their families also be offended? or is it only the selfless? are you really selfless if you make above the median wage? or are you just paid in self-congratulation?

All nasty truths aside spaceman, give me your definition of “social justice.” Lefties throw that around like it’s supposed to mean something. And it must mean it involves the government because it’s only used in a political context. So if it’s not getting something from the government, what is it? Is it having a government that takes resources from one person and gives it to another? Because if it is, you already have that.

Have any of you lived in a city with a living wage? Three small or medium sized businesses close down (and not because they really have to, but because the owner isn’t able to exploit enough money out of the system) and then the local media makes a big deal out of it for a week and then everything is fine except … wait for it … brown people make an amount of money that makes supporting their families just a little bit easier.

And, by the way, free market economy arguments are at least interesting, but people who make the argument seriously don’t say that the people are worth $5.xx an hour–they at least try to strip away some of the really dehumanizing elements of saying someone is worth less than $6/hr. It seems quite smug of those of you willing to talk about workers that way. =(

Social justice is also something your church does for its flock.

You’re right in that it is a broad, loaded term — and there are many definitions. My simple definition would be fairness within our “system” or society. “Liberty and Justice for All” perhaps.

You are incorrect to say that this is exclusive to “Lefties”. Example, there is a huge practice of social justice in the Catholic Church, and I know that many of those folks do not consider themselves liberal. And it is exclusive of government, but admittedly, our representatives are the ones we call on because they make and enforce laws to ensure justice.

That does not mean the government is taking something from someone and giving it to someone else. That is a very simplistic way to cop out and dismiss something you do not care to believe in (imo, it’s fine that you don’t believe in it, but not okay that you mischaracterize it).

Example, there is a huge practice of social justice in the Catholic Church, and I know that many of those folks do not consider themselves liberal.

That’s all well and good spaceman, but I wouldn’t characterize the catholic church as right wing. The archbishop and the rest of the clergy I know are big government liberals even if some of the parishioners may not be. I always thought the role of the church was to minister to their congregations but the catholic church has abdicated their responsibility and now expect government to do their job for them.

Conservative christian churches take care of the people themselves and haven’t abandoned their mission.

Jesus never advocated for government to take care of the people … he advocated for people to take care of each other. Which to me, doesn’t imply government bureaucracy but person-to-person direct help. This is what differentiates the “religious right” from the “religious left.”

And, by the way, free market economy arguments are at least interesting, but people who make the argument seriously don’t say that the people are worth $5.xx an hour–they at least try to strip away some of the really dehumanizing elements of saying someone is worth less than $6/hr. It seems quite smug of those of you willing to talk about workers that way.

When I discuss the free market and what it means for wages, I don’t attach a number to it. Because in a truly free market, your labor is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. It’s as simple as that. So any number that people come up with to identify what would be fair is artificial and arbitrary.

If I need a plumber to fix a leaking pipe that’s flooding my basement as we speak, maybe $500 an hour is “fair” because that’s what he’s asking and that sounds fine to me, given the circumstances. Minimum wage debates are boring and irrelevant because they’re about wage floors that virtually no one ever needs to sink to. Even burger flippers in my neighborhood make $8/hour due to supply and demand.

I didn’t characterize the Catholic Church as right wing. Nor did I advocate for “government bureaucracy”. And I’m able to think beyond the right/left dichotomy, which seems impossible for you.

Conservative christian churches that “take care of the people themselves” are probably practicing social justice principles.

Although I would argue that it makes more sense to address the root cause and attempt to change it than to just give people handouts. A group that advocates for a livable wage seems to be helping the situation more than a group that is handing out sandwiches and toilet paper to those folks making the poverty-level wage, although both are certainly important, and often groups do each of those activities.

Seems to me you might be against giving handouts as well. So what makes more sense, paying people a wage they can support a family off of, or giving them perpetual handouts that are often paid for by you, the taxpayer?

$8.00 an hour, most likely part time. And that ain’t gonna support a family. And $5.15 is irrelevant in Minnesota, because we have a higher minimum wage. And there are many people that make that amount — they are the ones standing at your conservative christian churches’ handout lines after work.

Conservative christian churches that “take care of the people themselves” are probably practicing social justice principles.

More likely, they just call it charity.

charity if they are giving handouts, social justice if they are attempting to change some of the reasons for the need of those handouts.

“charity if they are giving handouts, social justice if they are attempting to change some of the reasons for the need of those handouts.”

so spaceman, you think it’s social justice to discourage single motherhood?

social justice if they are attempting to change some of the reasons for the need of those handouts.

What do you mean change some of the reasons? You don’t know do you? Which is why this question was asked in the first place. Young, intellectually challenged hipster leftist morons who have no rational principles other than give me half of your loaf of bread because I want it, throw the term “social justice” around as if it means something when in fact it means nothing other than I deserve what you have just because.

If there was any social justice, anyone who advocated government-sanctioned redistribution of wealth would be jailed. There’s yer justice.

Now you’ve really fuckin gone and offended me. I am not a hipster, you assfuck.

I think that The Office Ringtone should have played a bigger role here…