Comments on: Chicago introduces "living wage"

By: Kevin Fields

Kevin Fields — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:42:03 +0000

I’m all for “living wage” increases when they make sense. In Chicago’s case, it makes NO sense at all. Employees are already paid above minimum wage by state law, this is just pure greed.

Wal-Mart won’t make-do with using fewer employees. Wal-Mart and other retail stores need all the employees they can get. Instead they will move their operations to where they can afford the employees.

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:07:37 +0000

I think minimum wage increases affect those who are earning it the most dramatically. When they go up, retail prices at places paying minimum wage are most directly affected. People shopping at Calvin Klein are not so directly affected.

And while “living wage” sounds good, what does it really mean? I paid my way through college, living in a cheap little apartment on a minimum wage job. Most people working with me were teenagers or stay at home moms looking for a little extra income. I was one of two actually living off the check, but I didn’t starve.

By: Rob Miller

Rob Miller — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:06:11 +0000

Except Walmart’s ability to offer low prices to consumers is much more of an economic aid than welfare or minimum wages are. Walmart’s low prices boost welfare by up to $50 billion a year, something that is going to go away if you force them to pay their workers a ridiculous amount as this legislation attempts to.

By: Troy Banther

Troy Banther — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:59:38 +0000

The only way to reduce the amount of wally worlds `is` to pay people more so they `can` afford to shop elsewhere.

It’s not funny to watch people suffer or to watch politicians, most of whom, have never a day of economic hardship a day in their lives.

By: Michael Hampton

Michael Hampton — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:40:20 +0000

The south side of Chicago is a predominantly black, and quite poor, section of town. A Wal-Mart would have benefited that community greatly and improved their standard of living.

A minimum wage which applies only to certain companies is likely to fall in court due to not applying to everyone equally. Maryland tried to do something like this earlier this year, forcing Wal-Mart to pay 8% of its revenues to employee health care, (when it already spent 7.5%) and it got shot down by the courts for that reason.