Chicago's Mayor Daley Vetoes 'Big Box' Ordinance

Monday, September 11. 2006

Chicago's Mayor Daley Vetoes 'Big Box' Ordinance

Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley today vetoed the "big box" minimum wage ordinance overwhelmingly passed by the Chicago City Council in July by a vote of 35-14.

The ordinance, which would apply to stores larger than 90,000 square feet owned by companies with more than $1 billion in total sales, would essentially raise the city's minimum wage to $10.75 an hour by next year, and to $13 an hour by 2010. The ordinance also includes cost-of-living increases thereafter.

The feel-good measure would simply drive business out of the city to the easily accessible close-in suburbs.

It is heartening to see that at least some elected Democrats have an understanding of basic economics, and are willing to stand up to the destructive tendencies of the 'progressives' within the Democratic Party.

Hopefully, we'll see more of this from prominent Dems, but I'm not holding my breath.

The Chicago Tribune's Gary Washburn reports:

Mayor Richard Daley today formally vetoed the controversial "big-box" minimum wage ordinance, setting the stage for a veto override vote at Wednesday's City Council meeting.

But Daley's action signaled he has the necessary support on the council to sustain the veto.
...

It was the first time in Daley's 17 years as mayor he exercised his veto power. By law, the mayor had until Wednesday's council meeting to issue his veto.

In a rare display of defiance, aldermen had voted 35-14 on July 26 to pass the minimum-wage law over the mayor's opposition.

The ordinance applies to stores of at least 90,000 square feet operated by firms with $1 billion or more in annual sales.

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 11:30 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (431)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Daley is no fool. Pass that law and a lot of businesses move out of the city limits. Or worse fire some people so the profit stays the same.

#1 James Stephenson on 2006-09-11 14:20 (Reply)

Agreed. Daley does know what he's doing. If retail outlets such as WalMart move just one inch outside the city limits, Chicago will lose quite a bit of sales tax revenue. And the close-in suburbs will be falling over themselves to attract those stores.

But is the city council that sensible? A 35 to 14 is a 71% vote in favor. That's usually enough to override a veto.

Could someone explain to me why those who're so hot and bothered about WalMart giant stores filled with goods from poorer countries don't direct their venom at the Swedish WalMark--Ikea? Is Sweden judged by a different standard than Arkansas?

--Mike Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien

#2 Mike Perry (Homepage) on 2006-09-11 15:44 (Reply)

The Chicago City Council is populated by fools, and has been for decades.

If I'm not mistaken, it takes 35 votes (out of 50) to override a mayoral veto in the Chicago City Council, so Daley just needs to change a couple of votes to make the veto stick.

#2.1 Tom on 2006-09-11 15:49 (Reply)

I was wrong about it taking 35 votes to override a mayoral veto; it takes 34.

#2.1.1 Tom on 2006-09-11 18:21 (Reply)

Mike,
There are people who are unable to buy goods in any other market. You can't expect everyone to pay Neiman Marcus prices. It isn't right to do that to the working poor.

#2.2 Avril on 2006-09-11 16:01 (Reply)

I think that is part of Mike's point. Snobby liberals have a problem with warehouse stores they wouldn't be caught dead in. They want to hurt a right leaning company and are trying to make up goofy ways to do it. Wal-Mart pays above minimum wage (as Morgan Spurlock found out).

#2.2.1 Clark on 2006-09-11 16:47 (Reply)

The City Council played politics and passed this law knowing that Mayor Daly would veto it. The numbers show that the veto will stick. Everybody is happy. Just like his Dad.

#3 James Balmer on 2006-09-11 16:44 (Reply)

Daley is no fool and neither are the aldermen who are going to allow him to veto the bill. This ordinance was idiotic beyond belief, but it plays well to the crowd.

Vetoing the bill will make way for inner city neighborhood growth and provide entry-level jobs and skills--a road out of the ghetto--to thousands of Chicagoans. It'll also generate some much-needed tax revenue to support social programs and keep people on the city payroll.

Learn some basic economic priciples, kids.

#4 ahem on 2006-09-11 18:54 (Reply)

The ordinance is almost certainly unconstitutional. While States can set a statewide minnium wage, as long as congress lets them, they can not set different minumum wages for different companies.

#5 Kazinski on 2006-09-11 22:22 (Reply)

Do the Math!

The benefit of the Global economy flows, in a direct line to Wal-Mart customers. These customers get the direct benefit of a good pair of jogging shoes, for $11, made in China, at an hourly wage of less then one dollar.

The less well off, those who are classified as below the poverty line in the USA, shop, to a high degree almost exclusively at Wal-Mart. The goods and food is of high quality, and Wal-Mart customers are loyal and appreciative.

Force Wal-Mart to raise wages and Wal-Mart and any other employer will attempt to reduce employment with a new machine or a micro-chip imbedded in a shoe that flashes the price on the screen and all sizes available, but look for a clerk - to no avail.

If Wal-Mart is forced to set wages by politics and dangerous liberal-sponsered laws, Wal-Mart will simply raise prices. Wal-Mart could raise prices tomorrow as Wal-Mart prices are much lower then other stores.

A few clerks if they are lucky and don’t loose the job will benefit, at the cost of a single mother with 3 children, buying for school.

Wal-Mart holds down inflation, the bane of the poor. Many Wal-Mart products in real dollar are lower in price then 5 years ago.

Who benefits?

#5.1 MacHatton (Homepage) on 2006-09-16 15:19 (Reply)

Waiting for the day when pundits learn to selectively parse language apart from politics. The issue is NOT minimum wage versus unemployment. Go surf US Labor Department homepage and the UEI stat's for 1976 to 2005 unemployment by State.

There is NEAR ZERO correlation between minimum wage and unemployment, the worst of which, the pundits won't report, came during the **Reagan Era** in the early 1980's, in his so-called "trickle down" theory "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining" era. Reagan sold US out to junk economics and politics that day.

So the issue is NOT minimum wage versus unemployment! The issue is incremental taxation effects on capital investment.

Pundits won't report incremental loss of capital investment within the US due to soaring budget deficits and ballooning US$ money supply, and yes, the need for a living wage to live and survive USA.

Here's the bottom line. Manufacturing is dead. China owns it. Retail (work) is dead, RFID and Big Box will soon own it. Government (work) is dead. Incompetence is growing capital budget deficits even faster than incremental tax increases. High tech is dead. India/ASEAN owns it.

That leaves the Trades, and Professions, both of which are entirely unaffected by minimum wage legislation.

Ergo, the elephant in the living room (ELR) on this is so-called "illegal immigration" versus paying a minimum wage to a labor pool which essentially has no wage floor. Slavery is a growth industry for the 21st Century America.

You will never hear that on Neo lips, which is why this issue remains dead on arrival for working American citizens.

#6 Erehwon Trebor on 2006-09-11 22:33 (Reply)

This little proposal from the Chicago City Council was about as hair-brained as can be imagined, but I have to wonder how you find this to be Unconstitutional.

I've read it, and I don't recall the Constitution covering the minimum wage at all.

In fact, the only area where the Constitution might address a minimum wage is in Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution which allow for the States and the People to decide on powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government in the body of the document.

As far as your comment on whether or not minimum wages affect employment, I give you Jack in the Box, the most expensive of the fast food restaurants, and a chain that very nearly went bankrupt in response to an unchanging business model and increasing minimum wage.

In order to eventually recover from the minimum wage increases Jack in the Box increased prices, closed stores, and guess what, caused job loss among the poor.

So don't pull any zero-sum BS about how minimum wage doesn't affect employment.

Additionally, how do you think the big-box stores are going to make their money after paying all these higher wages? They are going to raise the cost to consumers, which in turn will lower the value of each dollar earned so that in less than five years, with a new poverty line established, the poor will be in exactly the same pit and we'll be discussing this problem again.

Only next time, instead of making $60,000/year in my telecommunications job, I'll be making $80,000 (but it will feel like $60,000 because boneheaded schemers managed to get higher minimums for everyone) and you'll be whining that an $8/hour minimum wage for the unskilled isn't enough.

The US has been fighting the war on poverty for 40 years, and guess what, 12% of the population was "impoverished" in 1964 and 12% of the population is "impoverished" now. Maybe, just maybe, for an economy to work there has to be a bottom end and a top end.

I'd also like to point out that Americans do not understand the terms poverty or impoverished. If you want to know what they really are, and what those terms really mean, go to Central and South America and spend a week in the slums of cities like Guatemala City and Bogota.

There is a real definition of poverty and being able to watch Katie Couric tell you all about it on the CBS Evening News while you're watching your color TV is not part of that definition.

#6.1 David Earney (Homepage) on 2006-09-12 01:15 (Reply)

"This little proposal from the Chicago City Council was about as hair-brained as can be imagined, but I have to wonder how you find this to be Unconstitutional.

I've read it, and I don't recall the Constitution covering the minimum wage at all."

------------------------

A federal judge struck down a similar Maryland statute requiring Wal-Mart to spend 8% of its payroll on health benefits for its employees. The court based its decision on preemption (ERISA) and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Hard to say if the same reasoning would apply here, but I don't think you can rule it out. (Click Link below for reference.)

#6.1.1 capitano (Homepage) on 2006-09-12 08:45 (Reply)

Actually, the retail association and Wal-Mart challenged the statute on the basis of preemption and equal protection but the court's summary judgment was based on preemption only. The point being that there is a constitutional argument to be made.

#6.1.1.1 capitano on 2006-09-12 08:55 (Reply)

What has started to piss me off to no end is how the local tv newsreaders refer to the big-box ordinance unquestioningly as the "living wage" ordinance.

Those who want to be fooled are.

#7 doug deeper on 2006-09-12 09:05 (Reply)

Yeah, Hizzoner gets one thing right. Big whoop.

When he "allows" Chicagoans to own handguns and unregistered long guns, get back to me.

#8 Kim du Toit (Homepage) on 2006-09-12 14:04 (Reply)

I could hear you saying that before you said it, Kim.

#8.1 Random Numbers (Homepage) on 2006-09-12 15:37 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Monday, September 11. 2006

Chicago's Mayor Daley Vetoes 'Big Box' Ordinance

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Monday, September 11. 2006

Chicago's Mayor Daley Vetoes 'Big Box' Ordinance

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites