Wal-Mart expansion means more money for current Wal-Mart employees
Crossposted on Marathon Pundit.
At work today I met with a Wal-Mart employee who will be working at the new Niles Wal-Mart.
After some small talk, she explained that she's currently working at the Forest Park, Illinois Wal-Mart, but is taking this job in Niles because she's been promoted to a supervisory position--with a higher hourly wage.
Those "big box" opponents are clueless on a lot of things. Here's one more. Wal-Mart, Target, Lowe's etc. building new stores means higher wages for existing employees.
And if new stores aren't built? Well, you know the rest...
Oh, before someone chimes in that the "big boxes" drive out existing business, the current Chicago expansion plan is to build stores in low-income areas, so there is little existing retail presence to be driven out.
And if some businesses close? This will sound cruel, but one of the rules of capitalism is that businesses are supposed to fail. The A & P grocery chain and the Montgomery Ward department stores are just two of the many retail giants that folded their tents. At one time, these blue chippers were as ubiquitous as Wal-Mart.
In fact, remember the driving-through-the-shopping mall scene early on in the Blues Brothers film? Most of those retailers (a few won't be familiar to non-Chicagoans) that Jake and Elwood trashed with the Bluesmobile don't exist anymore.
The Blues Brothers was released in 1980.
Related post: Wal-Mart scorecard: Niles 2, Chicago 1
UPDATE: Additional anonymous comments--pro or con--will be deleted. Pick any name you want, but if you don't care to at least put some sort of name on your comments, then start your own blog. To quote Rich Miller, "it's my post, I can do what I want."
Update Sat. Aug 19: A commenter, "the other anonymous, on this blog pointed out that A&P does still exist. They are no longer a national powerhouse, but they have a cluster of 107 stores in the New York City area. The full name of A&P is Atlantic & Pacific, but the chain obviously is no longer coast to coast. What was once a giant is now roasted rump.
As for the truly anonymous comments. Frankly, I'm sick of people making idiotic statements from the safety of anomonity. The routine goes like this: "You don't live in Chicago anymore, so you can't comment on Chicago issues." I'm not Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, Lebanese, Druze, Syrian, Iranian, or Maronite Christian. Does that prohibit me from commenting on the Israel-Hezbollah war?
In fact, like many, make that most bloggers who written on that subject, I've never been to Israel or Lebanon. Although I've been to New York and its suburbs, and somehow missed encountering an A&P. Boots on the ground don't always mean accurate reporting.
And if anyone wants to defend their belief that a suburbanite shouldn't post on Chicago issues, at least pick a name. I'm not going to argue with ghosts.
By the way, what about all those non-6th district folks commenting on the Duckworth-Roskam race? Then there's the 8th district and Bean...the 9th....
See what I mean?
13 comments:
LL,
That nail was hit squarely on the head!
If you care for a real debate on the issue, then I am curious as to whether you believe we should abolish the minimum wage completely.
Is your objection to Big Box the precise number, or is it the idea that govenment should set a minimum wage at all?
And if some businesses close? This will sound cruel, but one of the rules of capitalism is that businesses are supposed to fail.
What if the big box stores are creating an inefficient market? Shouldn't the government step in to level the playing field?
It's funny that you use A&P as an example of a big, ubiquitous business that failed. [A&P is, actually, still in business with 407 stores, btw.] A&P's business practices at its height led Congress to enact the Robinson-Patman Act to protect A&P's suppliers. A&P was the subject of numerous antitrust investigations -- the last concluded in 1979 -- and it admitted violations of the antitrust laws.
In fact, A&P is a great analogy for WalMart: it is a business that thrived only as long as it could create market conditions, rather than exist in an efficient market.
WalMart thrives precisely because it creates market inefficiencies.
PS -- I hope that the moniker "Other Anonymous" fits your criteria for a non-anonymous posting. I've been using it for a while.
That is not responsive, LL.
Under that logic, the Chicago plan is even better. It goes local all the way. That is your goal, right?
Should we get rid of a state minimum wage?
What is the precise objection to the Big Box? Don't like the idea of a min. wage, or think this one is too high?
LL,
If Chicago had put the wage in place for all employers, you wouldn't have a problem, right?
Skeeter's got ya, Lovie, just admit it.
You think the minimum wage, 40 hour work week, Family an Medical Leave Act are all an infringement on Capitalism.
All hail Capitalism, Amen!!
Will HOME DEPOT and the links from Senator Jimmy D and Tony Resko be revealed with BIG BOX???????!!!!!
No, No, No
on the South Side (look into County Golf courses and privatization) and airport land deals (South) with JERRY JOYCE
Is doiligh drochrud a mharú
Let me get this right, LL.
You have no problems telling an employer that beyond a certain number of hours, it must pay the workers more, but you oppose any minimum wage?
Under your logic, an employee can be paid $1.00 an hour, but an employee working 41 hours MUST be paid $1.50 per hour for that extra hour.
Does that really make the slighest sense to you?
Answering further, LL:
Please name one union that advocates opening our borders.
Seriously, LL, do some reading. Your arguments have absolutely no basis in either fact or logic.
LL,
It is hard to debate when your posts make no sense at all.
Do some reading.
Find out what the laws regarding the 40 hour week require.
Look it up, and then come back and try to post something coherent. It is obvious from your post that you don't have the slighest clue what that law requires.
After you read it, please advise as to whether you still think your comments about the 40 hour week make the slighest sense.
If you understand that, then your comments really make no sense.
You are in favor of that, but not in favor of a minimum wage.
According to you, an employer should be allowed to pay $1.00 per hour, if the market wil bear it.
That is correct?
However, according to you, an employer paying that must pay -- the government orders it -- that the employer pay $1.50 an hour for over 40 hours.
That is correct?
To me, your arguments seem completely insane. Perhaps you can provide some light as to why the government should not set a minimum wage, but should be required to pay 1.5 times whatever wage it wants if the employee goes over 40 hours.
The author suggests that the Wal Mart employee who transfers to a new store gets a raise by promoting to an existing supervisory positin in that store, and that Big Box depresses her wage. What about the higher wage, and health care benefits, and retirement benefits of the Doninick's employee whose store closes becuse Wal Mart undercut Dominics prices with its low wage, no benefit jobs? And what about my taxes, increasing to provide Medicaid health care for the Wal Mart employee (and her low wage replacement at the former position she promoted from) AND unemployment benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid for the laid off Dominicks employee?
Post a Comment