• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • My Social Media
  • About
    • About Mark Draughn
    • Testimonials
    • Other Authors
      • About Gary Olson
      • About Ken Gibson
      • About Joel Rosenberg
    • Disclosures
    • Terms and Conditions

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.

Chicago’s Living Wage

July 14, 2006 By Mark Draughn 5 Comments

Apparently, Chicago is on the brink of passing a “living wage” ordinance that would require large big-box stores like Wal-Mart and Target to pay employees a minimum salary of $10 per hour with an additional $3 per hour going toward benefits.

One of the biggest problems with the “living wage” idea is that the Chicago City Council can’t actually make the big-box retailers pay a higher wage. All it can do is prevent them from paying low wages. Retailers will then have to choose between paying higher wages and paying no wages at all.

Target and Wal-Mart have already responded with threats to pull out of the Chicago market. Home Depot is expected to follow suit.

“Wal-Mart and Target could pay their people a living wage. Then we wouldn’t have this problem, and people could actually live on the money they made,” [Ald. Leslie] Hairston said.

First of all, not everybody wants to live off their wages. A lot of people are working only to supplement their income.

Second, nobody is forcing people to work at Wal-Mart. They can quit and look for another job any time they want. If the local job market makes that hard, it’s not Wal-Mart’s fault.

Fortunately, Mayor Daley is trying to put a stop to this bad idea before the City Council scares away the dozens of big-box stores planning to open in Chicago in the next few years. Thousands of jobs depend on the City making the right decision.

Share This Post

Filed Under: Chicago News

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Leah says

    July 14, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Did you see the Chicagoist post on it? I realize I shouldn’t expect them to understand basic economics, but they nearly made my head explode with all the stupidity. Enjoy, especially if you’re less irritable than I’ve been lately!

    http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006/07/14/see_spot_scram.php

    Reply
  2. John Ruberry says

    July 15, 2006 at 9:26 am

    The “big box” retailers offer first job possibilities to many people. That’s why the alderman for the 37th Ward on the West Side jumped at the oppty to have a Wal-Mart in the low-income Austin neighborhood.

    Reply
  3. BillyBad says

    July 26, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    This is freakin amazing. The city councel of Chicago DID pass this STUPID amendment! I will laugh my butt off if all the “big box” retailers just pull out of the Chicago market completely. Then what? Will the Chicago city councel go after Restaurants too? It is plain and clear the intentions of that corrupted government up there. Socialism doesn’t work and if Chicago’s masses of the unemployed pay the price perhaps they will pay attention next time who they vote in office to represent them. Personally I think this is sad, pathetic, and comunist!

    Reply
  4. Allen says

    July 27, 2006 at 11:42 am

    For every action there is an equal or greater reaction. In this case, the city of Chicago is forcing certain targeted retailers to either pay people per their ordinance or not pay people at all. I’m still waiting to see some retailers get creative ato get around this one by technically not having few if any employees working in their stores and simply contract the work out to firms that aren’t affected by this law.

    Reply
  5. James Liu says

    July 27, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    They did go after restaurants. Recall foie gras law.

    Reply

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • On the shooting of Renee Good
  • Swift Descending
  • GOA on Trump
  • Yes, It’s a Bribe
  • Talking to my fellow libertarians about DOGE
  • Late night thoughts on the current crisis
  • Joining The Cult
  • Trump’s dumb attempt to define sex

Where else to find me

  • Twitter
  • Post
  • Mastodon

Follow

  • X
  • Mastodon

Bloggy Goodness

  • Agitator
  • DrugWar Rant
  • Duly Noted
  • Dynamist
  • Hit & Run
  • Honest Courtesan
  • Nobody's Business
  • Popehat
  • Ravings of a Feral Genius

Blawgs

  • a Public Defender
  • appellatesquawk
  • Blonde Justice
  • Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.
  • Crime & Federalism
  • Crime and Consequences Blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • CrimLaw
  • D.A. Confidential
  • Defending Dandelions
  • Defending People
  • DUI Blog
  • ECIL Crime
  • Gamso For the Defense
  • Graham Lawyer Blog
  • Hercules and the Umpire
  • Indefensible
  • Koehler Law Blog
  • Legal Satyricon
  • New York Personal Injury Law Blog
  • Norm Pattis
  • not for the monosyllabic
  • Not Guilty
  • Probable Cause
  • Seeking Justice
  • Simple Justice
  • Tempe Criminal Defense
  • The Clements Firm
  • The Trial Warrior Blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Underdog Blog
  • Unwashed Advocate
  • West Virginia Criminal Law Blog

Bloggers

  • Booker Rising
  • Eric Zorn
  • ExCop-LawStudent
  • InstaPundit
  • Last One Speaks
  • Leslie's Omnibus
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Miss Manners
  • Preaching to the Choir
  • Roger Ebert's Journal
  • Speakeasy Blog
  • SWOP Chicago

Geek Stuff

  • Charlie's Diary
  • Google Blogoscoped
  • Schneier on Security
  • The Altruist
  • The Ancient Gaming Noob
  • The Daily WTF
  • xkcd

Resources

  • CIA World Factbook
  • Current Impact Risks
  • EFF: Bloggers
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jennifer Abel
  • StrategyPage
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • Wikipedia
  • WolframAlpha

Gone But Not Forgotten

  • Peter McWilliams

Copyright © 2026 Mark Draughn · Magazine Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress

Go to mobile version