Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

waxcrash · Jul 26, 2006, 09:51 PM

Today, a 'Big Box" ordinance was passed. Any company with stores at least 90,000 square feet and with over $1 billion in annual sales has to pay the minimum of $10 an hour. Right now the state minimum wage is $6.50 an hour.

I wonder if they will build Mini-Wal-Marts to get around the ordinance? Target if affected too.

generationfourt · Jul 26, 2006, 10:10 PM

I think every state should pass a law like that...

well maybe back in the day when I worked retail

Ghoser777 · Jul 26, 2006, 10:32 PM

I'm really kind of torn. The capitalist side of me thinks that if the wages of work are too low there, then people should get work elsewhere... which of course the other side of me will counter that this won't be possible after Walmart undermines many of the other small businesses in the area. Then again, Walmart's lower prices also make it possible for people with lower economic status to afford products, which is a good thing.

himself · Jul 26, 2006, 10:49 PM

I guess the Chicago City Council called their bluff. I really don't think that this will keep them out of a huge market like Chicago (Target, at least)... They may be more inclined to build in the surrounding suburbs, but they can't ignore the Chicago market.

bstone · Jul 26, 2006, 11:30 PM

After 3 1/2 years at the same ambulance service (where I work as an EMT) I still do not make that much. This service is based on the North Side of Chicago.

rickey939 · Jul 27, 2006, 12:18 AM

Totally rad.™

iREZ · Jul 27, 2006, 12:19 AM

walmart < poo

rickey939 · Jul 27, 2006, 07:22 AM

Meijer is going to take over the world.....errr, Chicago.

ghporter · Jul 27, 2006, 09:05 AM

Meijer already has Southern Michigan... And it's better than Wal-Mart by a long shot.

I don't see a "big box minimum wage" as a bad thing. It sets huge companies apart because they are big enough to afford to pay better than the state's minimum wage (which I believe isn't nearly enough to live on in Chicago), while not affecting the small businesses that might go under with such a requirement. As a side benefit, it keeps Wal-Mart from absorbing, Borg-like, any and all commercial space visible from Bentonville AR. This is a GOOD THING®™ in my mind, good for everyone including Wal-Mart, as they don't seem to understand the concept of "market saturation." There's a Wal-Mart approximately every 15 driving minutes in the part of San Antonio I live in; there isn't much of a difference between most of them (except certain stores have attracted a specific demographic of customers-the closest Wal-Mart to me is so enormously over filled with customers that bring the entire extended family just to buy a package of notebook paper that I don't go there at any time if I can avoid it).

iREZ, you're wrong. Wal-Mart is not "less than" poo. It's often Poo^infinity, as much because of the slime-like customers as the lack of selection and poor customer service.

blackstar · Jul 27, 2006, 09:15 AM

thats a very good law

Nicko · Jul 27, 2006, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Then again, Walmart's lower prices also make it possible for people with lower economic status to afford products, which is a good thing.

Well, where else are trailer trash going to get their cheap 10 pound buckets of candy and 100 roll bundles of toilet paper?

SSharon · Jul 27, 2006, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by bstone

After 3 1/2 years at the same ambulance service (where I work as an EMT) I still do not make that much. This service is based on the North Side of Chicago.

You should switch over to Pulse. They paid us on commission. Well they called it a "call bonus" but we knew what it was.

Millennium · Jul 27, 2006, 10:45 AM

I see a "big box minimum wage" as a Bad Thing, only because it was specifically crafted to punish a particular business model which people didn't like. If Chicago wants to increase the minimum wage that's its prerogative, but such an increase should be general and untargeted. This would do much more for the economy than punishing a particular business model simply because it has proven successful.

mike one · Jul 27, 2006, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Then again, Walmart's lower prices also make it possible for people with lower economic status to afford products, which is a good thing.

i think it is a mistake to say that you can't afford to pay workers and provide affordable items, you have forgotten the third varriable in the equation, namely corporate profits.

SeSawaya · Jul 27, 2006, 11:24 AM

I think since 5 of the top 10 richest people in the US are Wal mart owners, they can afford a slight cut in pay to raise their employees rates to at least a livable wage.

mitchell_pgh · Jul 27, 2006, 11:30 AM

I'm really mixed about this... shouldn't it be a unilateral increase across the board for anyone working in the city... or not.

I guess I don't like that they are targeting Wal-Mart and Target. People must make $10 being a door greeter at Wal-Mart, but the people parking the cars of and cleaning up the offices of the law makers shouldn't?

I guess I would rather have seen a minimum wage increase to $7.75 across the board in the city.

Ghoser777 · Jul 27, 2006, 11:32 AM

But that's what I don't get - if people can't live on Walmart's wages, shouldn't they not work there? I'd be curious to see how many people who work at Walmart get minimum wage and also use that job as their main source of income.

Millennium · Jul 27, 2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by SeSawaya

I think since 5 of the top 10 richest people in the US are Wal mart owners, they can afford a slight cut in pay to raise their employees rates to at least a livable wage.

Certainly they can. Should they be forced to, particularly by a law which specifically targets them? I'm not so sure. They got their money by honest means, so why should they be treated like thieves?

SSharon · Jul 27, 2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I see a "big box minimum wage" as a Bad Thing, only because it was specifically crafted to punish a particular business model which people didn't like. If Chicago wants to increase the minimum wage that's its prerogative, but such an increase should be general and untargeted. This would do much more for the economy than punishing a particular business model simply because it has proven successful.

I agree with you. I think the US would love to do the same thing to the oil companies. 10 billion in profit? well that's a lot of money so why don't we try forcing you to lower prices at the pump.
If people don't like it they should vote with their wallet, not with the lawmakers that themselves often earn way more than they deserve.

iREZ · Jul 27, 2006, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Certainly they can. Should they be forced to, particularly by a law which specifically targets them? I'm not so sure. They got their money by honest means, so why should they be treated like thieves?

honest means?...now that is ignorant.

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

SeSawaya · Jul 27, 2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by SSharon

I agree with you. I think the US would love to do the same thing to the oil companies. 10 billion in profit? well that's a lot of money so why don't we try forcing you to lower prices at the pump.
If people don't like it they should vote with their wallet, not with the lawmakers that themselves often earn way more than they deserve.

problem is government has made it impossible to NOT rely soley on gas, (alternative fuel incenties are FINALLY kicking in a tiny bit- too little too late) now we have to choice but to use them. Go ahead and live without gas for a month or two (unless you dont own a car), I'm willing to bet the oil companies can still win out.

bstone · Jul 27, 2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by SSharon

You should switch over to Pulse. They paid us on commission. Well they called it a "call bonus" but we knew what it was.

We have call bonuses, also. But when you sit there for 6 hours and get no calls you don't get a bonus.

Anyhow, Pulse doesn't exist any more and I'd prefer not to work for Vandenberg. The name freaks me out and the fact they have a herse service.

SSharon · Jul 27, 2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by bstone

We have call bonuses, also. But when you sit there for 6 hours and get no calls you don't get a bonus.

Anyhow, Pulse doesn't exist any more and I'd prefer not to work for Vandenberg. The name freaks me out and the fact they have a herse service.

Well see that's the problem. During the downtime you are supposed to find your own creative ways of making money. Before I started at pulse they warned us not to drive people home from the airport since we are not a taxi service, apparently that was common practice. You can always bring your macbook to work and somehow use that make more money.

I heard Pulse was bought out and I agree with you that working for vandenberg doesn't sound appealing. I don't care for the name so much as I don't like the red shirts.

Now back to walmart bashing. If you would all bash one walmart exec bstone could have more call bonuses driving them to the hospital.

hey!_Zeus · Jul 27, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by bstone

After 3 1/2 years at the same ambulance service (where I work as an EMT) I still do not make that much. This service is based on the North Side of Chicago.

Jezuz, where I live they make $60-70,000 a year. Up to 100 with overtime.

ghporter · Jul 27, 2006, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I see a "big box minimum wage" as a Bad Thing, only because it was specifically crafted to punish a particular business model which people didn't like. If Chicago wants to increase the minimum wage that's its prerogative, but such an increase should be general and untargeted. This would do much more for the economy than punishing a particular business model simply because it has proven successful.

Wal-Mart is much like kudzu; they expand even when there's no room to expand. I don't see that as being the same problem as their strangle hold on their suppliers' product lines though. Because their expansive nature has given them a basically captive audience for many kinds of products, THEY decide what Proctor & Gamble produce, NOT the rest of P&G's customer base. THAT is a VERY BAD THING.

Wal-Mart did not "earn" their market share, they gobbled it up, often against the wishes of the customers they now claim. If they were competitive rather than monopolistic, I wouldn't have a problem with them at all. Instead, their huge stores have aisle after aisle of the same bad selection of products, and their marketing people decide what you and I have an opportunity to buy EVERYWHERE.

Finally, this particular minimum wage applies to ALL big box stores. Meijer, Target, any Dayton-Hudson broadbased store... It's just that Wal-Mart's history of not so good employee relations makes them more of an example of what companies will stay out of a market because they don't want to pay their employees what they must to comply with such a law.