Your religion or your livelihood.....

[Jenksismyhero]

It supports a perpetual cycle of poverty and shovels a lot of the cost burden onto the tax payer while Walmart rakes in big bucks. Why should they be receiving large tax breaks on both real estate tax and on paying their workers?

 

 

A lot of stores sell crap with little regard for how or where it was manufactured. Walmart is one of them.

 

Supports a perpetual system?! It's 8.75 times BETTER than what they currently have. How is that perpetuating the cycle? Seems to me it's breaking the cycle.

 

Edit: and what "burden" is the tax payer being levied with?

 

And they should be given breaks because they're the only game in town offering a BILLION dollars of investment into the city (and hundreds of millions of new tax revenue every year). You guys are arguing as if the situation now is perfect. The city is losing money left and right and a lot of the poorest areas of the city lack ANY interest in commercial development.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Supports a perpetual system?! It's 8.75 times BETTER than what they currently have. How is that perpetuating the cycle? Seems to me it's breaking the cycle.

 

And they should be given breaks because they're the only game in town offering a BILLION dollars of investment into the city (and hundreds of millions of new tax revenue every year). You guys are arguing as if the situation now is perfect. The city is losing money left and right and a lot of the poorest areas of the city lack ANY interest in commercial development.

 

Actually, 0 times anything is still zero. And 8.75 is still poverty level.

 

But, I'll just repeat:

They don't really pay a livable wage and their purchasing practices drive all the decent-paying, lower-skilled jobs overseas. So they're stuck working crappy Walmart jobs for little pay and little or no benefits while being instructed on how to best maximize their federal and state subsidies.

 

Walmart drives out other employment opportunity for low-skilled workers. They're stuck making poverty-level wages and relying on government support while Walmart makes large profits. That's why it's a perpetual poverty cycle.

 

edit for your edit:

Edit: and what "burden" is the tax payer being levied with?

Reduced property taxes due to large tax breaks; incredibly high amounts for government assistance for Walmart employees because they'd rather instruct their employees on how to use government benefits than to actually provide said benefits or increased pay.

Edited June 23, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually, 0 times anything is still zero. And 8.75 is still poverty level.

 

But, I'll just repeat:

They don't really pay a livable wage and their purchasing practices drive all the decent-paying, lower-skilled jobs overseas. So they're stuck working crappy Walmart jobs for little pay and little or no benefits while being instructed on how to best maximize their federal and state subsidies.

 

Walmart drives out other employment opportunity for low-skilled workers. They're stuck making poverty-level wages and relying on government support while Walmart makes large profits. That's why it's a perpetual poverty cycle.

 

edit for your edit:

Edit: and what "burden" is the tax payer being levied with?

Reduced property taxes due to large tax breaks; incredibly high amounts for government assistance for Walmart employees because they'd rather instruct their employees on how to use government benefits than to actually provide said benefits or increased pay.

 

I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you're advocating that being unemployed, making ZERO dollars of income, is the same situation as having a job, that may or may not be a s***ty job (as if any retail job is a GREAT job), that pays 8.75 an hour. Shocked. Next time I talk to your boss i'll be sure to remind him that a raise of 8.75 is insignificant. I'm sure he'd be happy not to have to pay that out.

 

I'm not talking about situations where you're putting a Wal-mart in the middle of lincoln park or lakeview (although how wal-mart is any different than the 100 Targets in the city is beyond me), i'm talking about putting them in the poorest neighborhoods of the city (or on the edge of them....anywhere in the vicinity of them) and how that'd be beneficial to the people there, regardless of any benefit Wal-mart might get from that. Like I said, they're the only store willing to build in those areas. There's nothing else coming down the pipeline. The unions are arguing that a couple bucks more would be better. Yeah, it'd be better, but it's not better than having a worse job or no job at all.

As to the tax burden, who cares if they pay less property taxes? You're starting from zero. So ANY taxes would be a gain. And gov't assistance? Now you have a problem paying out government assistance? To people who actually work? So confused...

 

Also, Rex, even if propping up current businesses is an option (in these areas i'm talking about, they probably don't exist anyway), that's you and me paying for that, not a big company. Where do we fit that into the budget? Raise taxes?

 

 

[Texsox]

First off, I agree with most of Jenks post.

 

Second, does Illinois tax food? Texas does not, and I thought Illinois stopped as well.

 

I'm wondering if this was similar to the problem we had down here, the nearest Jaguar dealer was 200 miles away in San Antonio. Eventually, one moved here.

[Controlled Chaos]

I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you're advocating that being unemployed, making ZERO dollars of income, is the same situation as having a job, that may or may not be a s***ty job (as if any retail job is a GREAT job), that pays 8.75 an hour. Shocked. Next time I talk to your boss i'll be sure to remind him that a raise of 8.75 is insignificant. I'm sure he'd be happy not to have to pay that out.

 

I'm not talking about situations where you're putting a Wal-mart in the middle of lincoln park or lakeview (although how wal-mart is any different than the 100 Targets in the city is beyond me), i'm talking about putting them in the poorest neighborhoods of the city (or on the edge of them....anywhere in the vicinity of them) and how that'd be beneficial to the people there, regardless of any benefit Wal-mart might get from that. Like I said, they're the only store willing to build in those areas. There's nothing else coming down the pipeline. The unions are arguing that a couple bucks more would be better. Yeah, it'd be better, but it's not better than having a worse job or no job at all.

As to the tax burden, who cares if they pay less property taxes? You're starting from zero. So ANY taxes would be a gain. And gov't assistance? Now you have a problem paying out government assistance? To people who actually work? So confused...

 

Also, Rex, even if propping up current businesses is an option (in these areas i'm talking about, they probably don't exist anyway), that's you and me paying for that, not a big company. Where do we fit that into the budget? Raise taxes?

The whole argument against Walmart in Chicago is just bananas!!!

[NorthSideSox72]

The whole argument against Walmart in Chicago is just bananas!!!

By the way, it looks like Walmart is indeed coming to Chicago, and not just one or two stores - a whole lot of them, and it has Daley's backing. That means its highly likely to make it through the City Council.

 

 

[Controlled Chaos]

By the way, it looks like Walmart is indeed coming to Chicago, and not just one or two stores - a whole lot of them, and it has Daley's backing. That means its highly likely to make it through the City Council.

I thought it alwyas had Daley's backing. It's the unions who are against it and they bring the mighty influence with em.

 

Also, this....

"Walmart has this strategy of entering the urban marketplace, but they want to bring the rural wages with them," he said, adding Walmart's pay scale is a drag on the wages paid by competing retailers."

 

is bulls***. They pay what every other retail job would pay. What do cashiers at fast food restaurants make? Cashiers at Kohls? Video stores?? Nobody is boycotting McDonalds or White Castle....What are those...ideal career paths with a high end salary structure?? People need and want these jobs. They need and want the food. The city needs the tax revenue.

[StrangeSox]

I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you're advocating that being unemployed, making ZERO dollars of income, is the same situation as having a job, that may or may not be a s***ty job (as if any retail job is a GREAT job), that pays 8.75 an hour. Shocked. Next time I talk to your boss i'll be sure to remind him that a raise of 8.75 is insignificant. I'm sure he'd be happy not to have to pay that out.

 

I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you cannot follow an argument without turning it completely into a strawman.

[NorthSideSox72]

I thought it alwyas had Daley's backing. It's the unions who are against it and they bring the mighty influence with em.

 

Also, this....

"Walmart has this strategy of entering the urban marketplace, but they want to bring the rural wages with them," he said, adding Walmart's pay scale is a drag on the wages paid by competing retailers."

 

is bulls***. They pay what every other retail job would pay. What do cashiers at fast food restaurants make? Cashiers at Kohls? Video stores?? Nobody is boycotting McDonalds or White Castle....What are those...ideal career paths with a high end salary structure?? People need and want these jobs. They need and want the food. The city needs the tax revenue.

Daley likes it, the wards that lean hardest left need it most, the other wards won't get the stores so are less likely to care... I think there is a strong chance this passes the City Council.

 

[Balta1701]

They need and want the food. The city needs the tax revenue.

Really, I think it's pretty well understood that in most places, Walmart isn't a tax revenue generator. We've gone over that on things like dumping people onto government services, etc., but at the local level, the 2 key issues are the amount of additional construction and spending the City has to put out to create the Walmart, and the fact that a huge percentage of Walmart stores wind up closed within a handful of years if they don't produce well enough, leaving a nearly unusable large retail space that the city winds up owning and having to police. People like Daley can win because of campaign contributions, but the city as a whole at best will come out with essentially a draw.

 

In terms of the worst of the worst areas though, there probably would be an offsetting benefit of allowing better access to supermarket-quality food and prices just on improving the area, so I probably come down on that side in the most blighted areas. The inability to get standard supermarkets into poverty stricken areas and the results on the diets in those areas is a huge negative quality of life issue.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you cannot follow an argument without turning it completely into a strawman.

 

as per usual, you give no argument, you just like to categorize/label responses. "Straw man! Shifting goal posts! Look at me, I see what you're doing!"

 

I said 8.75/hr is better than 0. You responded by saying that's just continuing a perpetual cycle. When I asked why, you answered because Walmart doesn't pay good enough wages. I'm still waiting for you to answer how in some of these areas, with crazy high unemployment (40%), where Walmart will provide a job to those that don't have one, how exactly is it perpetuating the cycle for poor people? They're being paid a wage that they weren't being paid before.

 

Edit: I should say they're being offered that wage. They actually have to apply for a job and get it.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Controlled Chaos]

Really, I think it's pretty well understood that in most places, Walmart isn't a tax revenue generator. We've gone over that on things like dumping people onto government services, etc., but at the local level, the 2 key issues are the amount of additional construction and spending the City has to put out to create the Walmart, and the fact that a huge percentage of Walmart stores wind up closed within a handful of years if they don't produce well enough, leaving a nearly unusable large retail space that the city winds up owning and having to police. People like Daley can win because of campaign contributions, but the city as a whole at best will come out with essentially a draw.

 

In terms of the worst of the worst areas though, there probably would be an offsetting benefit of allowing better access to supermarket-quality food and prices just on improving the area, so I probably come down on that side in the most blighted areas. The inability to get standard supermarkets into poverty stricken areas and the results on the diets in those areas is a huge negative quality of life issue.

Well not much tax revenue coming from garbage infested empty vacant lots where I assume most of these stores will go.

[StrangeSox]

as per usual, you give no argument, you just like to categorize/label responses. "Straw man! Shifting goal posts! Look at me, I see what you're doing!"

 

I said 8.75/hr is better than 0. You responded by saying that's just continuing a perpetual cycle. When I asked why, you answered because Walmart doesn't pay good enough wages. I'm still waiting for you to answer how in some of these areas, with crazy high unemployment (40%), where Walmart will provide a job to those that don't have one, how exactly is it perpetuating the cycle for poor people? They're being paid a wage that they weren't being paid before.

 

Edit: I should say they're being offered that wage. They actually have to apply for a job and get it.

 

you're advocating that being unemployed, making ZERO dollars of income, is the same situation as having a job, that may or may not be a s***ty job (as if any retail job is a GREAT job), that pays 8.75 an hour. Shocked. Next time I talk to your boss i'll be sure to remind him that a raise of 8.75 is insignificant. I'm sure he'd be happy not to have to pay that out.

 

that is not my position and that's not what I'm advocating. You erected a strawman of what I was saying to easily knock it down. You keep ignoring what I'm actually saying. If you keep committing glaring logical fallacies instead of addressing someone's argument, I'll continue to point that out to you. It's hard to have a discussion when you won't honestly address what the other person is saying or keep trying to shift your arguments.

 

8.75 is poverty. Walmart moving in and paying 8.75 isn't going to break poverty and it isn't going to give additional marketable skills or significant advancement opportunity. That's why is simply perpetuates the cycle. Walmart's business practices are a major factor in non-poverty level jobs for low-skilled workers going overseas, and there's a variety of other reasons why, generally, Walmart has a negative effect for the poor in this country. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to expand on that. But, in the mean time, can you actually address the issue I brought up instead of lying about what I'm saying?

Edited June 23, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Well not much tax revenue coming from garbage infested empty vacant lots where I assume most of these stores will go.

Walmarts need huge lots. There's usually a lot of demolition involved in clearing space for one. Even if it takes over a previously failed retail lot.

[Jenksismyhero]

that is not my position and that's not what I'm advocating. You erected a strawman of what I was saying to easily knock it down. You keep ignoring what I'm actually saying. If you keep committing glaring logical fallacies instead of addressing someone's argument, I'll continue to point that out to you. It's hard to have a discussion when you won't honestly address what the other person is saying or keep trying to shift your arguments.

 

8.75 is poverty. Walmart moving in and paying 8.75 isn't going to break poverty and it isn't going to give additional marketable skills or significant advancement opportunity. That's why is simply perpetuates the cycle. Walmart's business practices are a major factor in non-poverty level jobs for low-skilled workers going overseas, and there's a variety of other reasons why, generally, Walmart has a negative effect for the poor in this country. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to expand on that. But, in the mean time, can you actually address the issue I brought up instead of lying about what I'm saying?

 

I'm addressing it! I'm arguing that you can't perpetuate a cycle of poor when you're being offered more than you were previously. Even if you consider 8.75 per hour a wage below the poverty line (which I don't), it's still putting that person in a better position. That's my point. Wal-mart is providing not only those people, but also the city, financial incentives, which apparently the union just ignores.

 

If you want to argue that they should be paid more than that, fine, make that argument. But you can't discredit my point by simply saying "well, 8.75 still isn't very good" which is basically what you're doing. We're starting from a point of zero here - there's no property, sales or income taxes being generated, there are no wages being earned (assumption here obviously, but i'm assuming some of these stores will be going to poorer areas where access to even "poor" jobs like this are difficult), there's nothing. The minute the deal is signed Wal-mart and the city have employed thousands of laborers, and thereafter tens of thousands of retail workers. Cash will be spent, taxes will be generated, and most importantly, people will have access to decent food (Yes, I consider Wal-mart's produce equally as good as most Jewel/Dominick's in the city....not as good as your produce-only market, but for a gigantic supermarket chain, yes) and a decent job. The hope is that their standard of living increases just a tad.

 

And I would like to know how Wal-mart's have a negative effect on the poor. They're the cheapest place around for basic goods. It saves the poor money.

[NorthSideSox72]

To me, its all about where you allow the stores. Giving Walmart full reign to just build big boxes and get zoning variances anywhere it pleases won't work well, and in fact will hurt. On the other hand, targeting areas where a Walmart will improve things, can be very effective. Also, some of the jobs will pay more than 8.75, the construction jobs certainly will, and there are managerial positions to be had in the store. Furthermore, most of the lots in those areas that would be built on are vacant and probably pay little or no property taxes.

 

I think its a good thing, as long as its implemented carefully, so that Walmart provides upward movement in the right areas, an doesn't just blanket the city in order to drive out other stores.

 

[Balta1701]

And I would like to know how Wal-mart's have a negative effect on the poor. They're the cheapest place around for basic goods. It saves the poor money.

Because they also have this nasty habit of creating a large number of poor people by putting what businesses do exist out of business.

 

Also...they're often not the cheapest place for basic goods. I never shop at Walmart, because I can constantly get better prices at other stores, aside from any ideological reason.

 

Walmart's game is to try to have the lowest price on enough core items, on the handful of "rollback" items that they advertise or on a few items that people know the price of, that they can charge you a lot more for other items and you'll still think you're getting a good price. That said, compared to the costs of having large traveling distances for any sort of quality item or fresh produce, there are inherent advantages as well.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because they also have this nasty habit of creating a large number of poor people by putting what businesses do exist out of business.

 

Also...they're often not the cheapest place for basic goods. I never shop at Walmart, because I can constantly get better prices at other stores, aside from any ideological reason.

 

Walmart's game is to try to have the lowest price on enough core items, on the handful of "rollback" items that they advertise or on a few items that people know the price of, that they can charge you a lot more for other items and you'll still think you're getting a good price. That said, compared to the costs of having large traveling distances for any sort of quality item or fresh produce, there are inherent advantages as well.

 

Someone sue Henry Ford because my great grandfather's livery yard went out of business as soon as he invented the Model T. That's a crap argument IMO, unless you extend it to any business that doesn't sell about 10 items total - grocery stores, electronic stores, shoe stores, blah blah blah. They all put the "little guy" out of business. Even still, there are PLENTY of examples of mom and pop shops that still survive, despite having every large box store within a 5 mile radius. And that doesn't even apply to the situations i'm talking about, where there are no small businesses to put out of business.

 

And where are you finding these prices at actual retail stores? Online doesn't count.

[Balta1701]

And where are you finding these prices at actual retail stores? Online doesn't count.

Huh? Yeah, I find lots of sales listed online. They're almost never better than grocery stores.

 

Beyond that though, every year or two some group does the survey and finds that for most items, Walmart's prices are fairly easily beat.

 

The classic example is when Walmart lost the suit about their former slogan "always the lowest price" and had to change it to "always low prices". The comb is another example.

My barber has offered me a simple example. He sells a nonbreakable pocket comb for 25 cents that he procures from his vendor for eight cents. Wal-Mart sells a lower-quality comb for 98 cents, and one would assume that Wal-Mart pays less for it than the barber does. People keep buying Wal-Mart combs, however, because the average person does not know the going price of a pocket comb, and it is automatically assumed that the Wal-Mart price is the lowest.

Random link

[Jenksismyhero]

Huh? Yeah, I find lots of sales listed online. They're almost never better than grocery stores.

 

Beyond that though, every year or two some group does the survey and finds that for most items, Walmart's prices are fairly easily beat.

 

The classic example is when Walmart lost the suit about their former slogan "always the lowest price" and had to change it to "always low prices". The comb is another example.

Random link

 

Hmm. Interesting. I mean, i didn't think they'd be the lowest price for everything, but I did for most things. I'll have to check out that report.

[Balta1701]

Hmm. Interesting. I mean, i didn't think they'd be the lowest price for everything, but I did for most things. I'll have to check out that report.

Like i said, between coupons, rebates, grocery stores, Walgreens, CVS, Target, Aldi, and occasionally a few other stores, I haven't had any need to stop at Walmart, I'm constantly beating their prices. If I want something higher quality, I'll go to the farmer's market or the organic store nearby.

 

Then again, I have lots of options nearby. The whole reason why I'm inching towards your side is that in truly blighted areas, there aren't that many options.

[Texsox]

Like i said, between coupons, rebates, grocery stores, Walgreens, CVS, Target, Aldi, and occasionally a few other stores, I haven't had any need to stop at Walmart, I'm constantly beating their prices. If I want something higher quality, I'll go to the farmer's market or the organic store nearby.

 

Then again, I have lots of options nearby. The whole reason why I'm inching towards your side is that in truly blighted areas, there aren't that many options.

 

How do you know you are beating their prices?

[Balta1701]

How do you know you are beating their prices?

I'll visit on occasion since it's right next to the Aldi and check, and i check various sale-aggregator/coupon matchup websites that list their weekly sales. Does piss me off that they never run an ad.

[StrangeSox]

I'm addressing it! I'm arguing that you can't perpetuate a cycle of poor when you're being offered more than you were previously. Even if you consider 8.75 per hour a wage below the poverty line (which I don't), it's still putting that person in a better position. That's my point. Wal-mart is providing not only those people, but also the city, financial incentives, which apparently the union just ignores.

 

No, you're not. Maybe because you simply refuse to understand it. 8.75 is poverty. Do you not consider $18200 a year poverty? Or is it not poverty because those making that much can rely on government assistance to get by? And, through their business practices, they drive out any sort of higher-paying job for low-skilled workers. They're stuck in retail making poverty level wages. You haven't even begun to address that.

 

Walmart "saves the poor money" by shipping the jobs they could get paying more than $8.75 overseas. That is the problem. And if you're going to consider Walmart goods as low price for yourself (I'm assuming you're better than poverty and pay more in taxes than any refunds, services, etc.), you need to factor in all of those tax breaks and the government assistance all of their employees need. They've found an economically brilliant way of exploiting that system.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, you're not. Maybe because you simply refuse to understand it. 8.75 is poverty. Do you not consider $18200 a year poverty? Or is it not poverty because those making that much can rely on government assistance to get by? And, through their business practices, they drive out any sort of higher-paying job for low-skilled workers. They're stuck in retail making poverty level wages. You haven't even begun to address that.

 

Walmart "saves the poor money" by shipping the jobs they could get paying more than $8.75 overseas. That is the problem. And if you're going to consider Walmart goods as low price for yourself (I'm assuming you're better than poverty and pay more in taxes than any refunds, services, etc.), you need to factor in all of those tax breaks and the government assistance all of their employees need. They've found an economically brilliant way of exploiting that system.

 

Well, it's not poverty unless you're assuming there's a family of 4 being provided for with that income. I paid for part of my first year of college on a $5.15/hr job (2000-2001). As someone else said, you're not going to do much better working at a fast food joint anyways. We're not talking about building an entire industry full of professional level jobs here. That's just not going to happen. This is the best alternative (especially adding in the fact that they're also providing these neighborhoods with an actual source of decent food)

 

And besides, as I've said from the beginning, in the areas I'm talking about, ANY job = wealthy. You're viewing this on a national scale, which isn't realistic. You're saying that Wal-mart isn't necessarily a good thing because they don't provide enough. You need to compare it to what's already in these poor areas, which is basically nothing. 40% unemployment man. That's a ridiculous amount.

 

Again, everything you're talking about, your forgetting that we're starting at a baseline of zero here. These people i'm talking about HAVE NOTHING and MAKE NOTHING. So who cares that Wal-mart ships jobs overseas or that their also on government assitance (as if that fact is going to change even when they get a job)? It's a net gain on all fronts, hence why I'm a big fan of it.