A Lesson on the Minimum Wage
Democrats are constantly seeking minimum wage increases, but here's an object lesson in what happens when liberal economics triumph.
The Chicago City Coucil passed an ordinance to "to require wage and benefit standards for retail stores with more than 90,000 square feet owned by companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales." How wonderful, thought the liberals -- we're going to guarantee a "living wage" with benefits, and from the hegemonic, oppressive big box stores, no less!
But happily for all of us and for the principle of liberty, it's difficult for the government effectively to impose wage controls in a capitalist system. As a result of the Council's bill, Target has now decided to withdraw from a 32-acre shopping mall development that the city had expected it to anchor (and into which the city has already sunk $23 million in subsidies). What's more, Target may pull out of another development in Chicago.
Way to go, City Council. You really helped all those people who won't get jobs at the new Target(s) (or, perhaps, elsewhere if the entire development goes down), as well as all the disadvantaged people who won't have the option of shopping at Target for a wide range of merchandise at reasonable prices. What's more -- and note it's the councilwoman's only stated concern -- the city won't be getting the sales tax it expected.
Thanks for taking a stand on behalf of the "working people." At least in Chicago, fewer of them will actually be working than if you had just kept your wage controls to yourself.
The Chicago City Coucil passed an ordinance to "to require wage and benefit standards for retail stores with more than 90,000 square feet owned by companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales." How wonderful, thought the liberals -- we're going to guarantee a "living wage" with benefits, and from the hegemonic, oppressive big box stores, no less!
But happily for all of us and for the principle of liberty, it's difficult for the government effectively to impose wage controls in a capitalist system. As a result of the Council's bill, Target has now decided to withdraw from a 32-acre shopping mall development that the city had expected it to anchor (and into which the city has already sunk $23 million in subsidies). What's more, Target may pull out of another development in Chicago.
Way to go, City Council. You really helped all those people who won't get jobs at the new Target(s) (or, perhaps, elsewhere if the entire development goes down), as well as all the disadvantaged people who won't have the option of shopping at Target for a wide range of merchandise at reasonable prices. What's more -- and note it's the councilwoman's only stated concern -- the city won't be getting the sales tax it expected.
Thanks for taking a stand on behalf of the "working people." At least in Chicago, fewer of them will actually be working than if you had just kept your wage controls to yourself.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:00 AM
9 Comments:
It's going to be harder for the homeless to find a box since Target won't be throwing them out the back.
The endless supply of strawmen and lies you are spewing here dhead aren't doing a thing but quadrupling the size of your ego.
The TRUTH is that Democrat "solutions" have closed more businesses than you can shake a stick at...how many union sponsored strikes have ended in business closings? I've seen that happen, people that were making decent middle class wages for non-skilled labor were laid off.
Why is the health care insurance so high? (and 20%/year is an over the top lie). It's because of the LIBERAL Trial Lawyers! Get a grip!
oh, Carol, BTW, EXCELLENT post.
woo hoo! finally no more unhinged conspiracy nutcase.
Yeah, Capitalism works, and it's not the zero sum game the libs think it is. Everyone and ANYONE is capable of getting rich...and you don't even have to be evil! That's the bonus. And then you can donate to your hearts content, or horde it all for your dogs and cats and fishies at home. It's true FREEDOM. You can choose to be poor if you want. And in America, that means you only get a car, a DVD player, a big screen TV, an iPod and a habitat...oh and some extra funny money for food, beer and cigarettes...
I myself, middle-class, and I donate a lot (My good friend Lucy here is my latest). If I lost my job, all my donation would have to stop. At least until I got another job or started a new successful business...
Point being, I don't need any government bureaucrat telling me who needs my donation, and then skimming the top 80% off...re: Katrina
ditto's leaving? We'll see. Personally, I don't care if he stays or not. It'd be nice to hear a good argument from him if he returns.
It's hardly the point if a "big box store" stays where they will be taxed harder for their success. The point is that some think it's OK to take from the producers. Where do they get off? If they were to lobby the stores directly to dig deeper, and then the store complies, that's totally cool. But to demand and expect? Totally unAmerican.
It's that Greater Good. However they care to define it.
I'm not sure what's behind it, and I've always been curious to know.
I perceive that their belief is "profit is evil". What it actually is I can't say with certainty.
Frankly, because I'd rather not drop a dime on Krugman, but hear it from you in your own words.
Carol might not, but Google helps. Here's about the one thing I've found where you were not against something but explicitly for something:
I'm for a progressive system of taxation[2] that prevents dynasties of wealth and power from ruling the nation[partly 3]. I'm for the rich having a little less so that everybody has a little more. I'm for free, quality education for every child, not just rich white ones.[10]
You can find the bracketed numbers here.
How do you feel about "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state", especially as it applies to "rich white radio blowhards" for instance? [6]
Post a Comment
<< Home