A View From the Sears Tower's Ledge
Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Mayor Blames Violent Holiday Weekend On Booze, Heat
Kuma's Pats Itself On Back With Block Party
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
According to an unnamed "top official," the Sun-Times reported yesterday that Wal-Mart is prepared to build as many as five South Side supercenters in six to twelve months, maybe sooner, but is also scouting sites in neighboring wards in case local aldermen resist. "We're making an active effort to speak with [the local] aldermen. We can't move forward without them. If it is proven in the near future they're not interested — maybe they don't want the controversy or they made commitments to restrict development — we will look for opportunities in adjacent wards. We've been approached by [other] aldermen who are very interested," Roderick Scott, Wal-Mart's regional manager for community affairs, told the Sun-Time's Fran Spielman.
In classic Wal-Mart fashion, the company is preparing to employ its nearly patented strong-arm tactics, which when combined with a divide-and-conquer strategy, especially when employed in urban black communities, is incredibly effective. During the last round of fights in the city council over zoning variances and what kind of retail the city will have in underserved neighborhoods, that divide-and-conquer approach spilled over into the aldermanic races, with both Daley and several now unemployed aldermen singing from Wal-Mart's choir book and calling labor unions in Chicago racist. It's easy for white liberals on the North Side, who have easy access to jobs, public transportation, and inexpensive, high-quality groceries to wring their hands about the cultural effects of Wal-Mart in the city. And it's very hard for an alderman like Anthony Beal, who really does have a ward with very few opportunities for shopping to say no to Wal-Mart. The unfortunate aspect of this entire "debate" is that it pits the middle class against the working class, black against white.
Although some of the new aldermen on the council are trying to play hardball with Wal-Mart (mindful that this issue and its aftershocks were what helped carry them into office in the first place), even a living wage from Wal-Mart isn't good enough. The irony isn't lost on us here at Chicagoist, that among the locations under consideration for what is being touted as a job opportunity for the community is the site of two former steel plants. Perhaps part of the reason that there are no good jobs in those communities (and therefore little economic incentive for more traditional retail options to open for business) is that, in spite of the so-called rebirth of Chicago, there are still vast portions of the city that have been left behind in this new global economy.
Ultimately, labor unions and their membership, community leaders and yes, even the people that live in the neighborhoods that will be affected by Wal-Mart's presence in Chicago have some tough decisions to make in the coming six to twelve months, maybe sooner. Will what's left of the labor movement in Chicago actually be able to do the difficult work of organizing workers and fighting to create better jobs for their members, or will they simply demand social legislation that forces business to behave? Will aldermen in wards that are being targeted by Wal-Mart continue to try and take the easy path to job creation, opening more big boxes owned by faceless corporations that suck money out of a community, putting little more than free calculators for elementary school children back into the community?
As Wal-Mart prepares to launch its latest attack of divide and conquer, we think it's a fair bet that the city council will talk a lot about living wage ordinances and jobs for communities, without actually doing anything about the economic inequities that plague the South and West sides of the city. Perhaps those 50 aldermen should be debating ways to bring more industry back into Chicago, and working to make sure that ward residents in poor communities have better access to good union jobs, working on some of that glorious rebirth that keeps growing vertically downtown, rather than sweeping the floor in a fluorescent outlet for cheap Chinese-made products.
Image via In These Times.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
That's the big store with all the dirty diapers thrown about the parking lot, correct?
Who cares about Wal-Mart?
Check out that American Apparel Ad above. Hubba hubba!!
The guy looks like a total nerd. I guess that's the point: total nerd is getting this babe to show her milky white thighs and ass to everybody walking by.
He's all like "check us out, we're gonna do it standing up in public b/c I'm a nerd"
Thoughtful essay, but I have a few questions:
When you say leaders should do more to bring more industry back to Chicago, what kinds of industries are you talking about? I assume you don't mean steel mills and auto plants and the like, or even computer plants? That would seem unrealistic for the variety of reasons, not the least of which are global economic realities (see: China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) and Rust Belt union rules.
Why should residents in poor communities have access to "good union jobs"? Why not merely good jobs? It is possible to have a good job without belonging to a union, or making this effort a recruiting tool for the various unions. As well, are you mainly talking about SEIU-type jobs/recruiting efforts, or something else?
I happen to live very close to one of the proposed sites. I would love for it to be put there too. As far as wal-mart putting out little mom and pop places, there are simply no mom and pop places around this community. There is nothing really. Nothing but a lot of garbage on the streets and boarded up restaurants and storefronts.
The one wal-mart that opened in the city several years ago recieved 25,000 applications for employment the first 2 days it began accepting them!! 25,000!! How can anyone say they don't want a ton of jobs in their ward, especially when you have over 25,000 people in a local area looking for a job?!
These walmarts will bring not only jobs, but development! Isn't this exactly what such areas need?? Jobs and development!!!!
I hope this wal-mart gets built, I will actually have a place to shop for groceries and other things without having to drive to the south loop!
That's right: Wal Mart is Evil. They want to evilly sell diapers and toilet paper at cut rate prices because they don't care about black people.
The point isn't whether the community needs Wal-Mart, but whether the country does. Wal-Mart has hurt 1,000s of communities all over America. Solidarity against its unscrupulous practices and substandard worker wages and benefits should keep people from supporting Wal-Mart. There are other retailers who could come in.
BTW, I predict Wal-Mart will be in big trouble once the federal government comes back a bit from its free market free-for-all and decides to crack down on imports from China that do not pass safety inspections. The heat is rising.
I would rather pay those high prices at the local corner store owned by someone from Pakistan than go to WalMart where they are employing people from the community and I can save money.
Not.
The small store put themselves out of business.
And here comes Ross with his wonderfully simplistic version of libertarian economics.
Of course, he ignores lobbying efforts by big corporations that lead to laws that can harm mom-and-pops; often anti-small business practicies such as TIFs; and other features of modern economics.
As well, does not the corner store employ people who live here? Or does the Pakistani fly home every night? (Yes, I realize some money often goes to family members back home.)
I needed a laugh today from my favorite "free market" idealist.
vise77: "Rust Belt union rules" are much less of an issue than one might think. The steels mills in Northern Indiana are hiring pretty steadily, and those are all for excellent union jobs. Indiana has Illinois beat on good manufacturing jobs, hands down. I don't understand why Hoosiers should benefit from that economic growth, and people in Illinois should have to go, hat in hand, begging for jobs from the likes of Wal-Mart. As for good jobs vs. good union jobs, I would argue that generally a union job is better than a good job. As far as unions growing, I am in favor of workers organizing themselves into free and independent unions, and fighting for better wages and working conditions. SEIU won't make this into an organizing campaign, since the UFCW represents retail workers. Whether they will actually go out and organize anyone remains to be seen. At this point, it seems like they would rather have the city council legislate wages than do the difficult job of organizing workers.
mark: I think it's a sad day when 25,000 people are applying for a job at Wal-Mart in a city as large as Chicago. I am all for people having access to groceries in their community, but I doubt that these stores will bring jobs and "development" to these communities. Wouldn't there be a bigger pay off in the community if aldermen were advocating for better jobs? Even if Wal-Mart pays $13 an hour, I can't see how this will develop the area, economically. Wouldn't it be better if people that lived in some of these communites had access to middle-class jobs, like unionized construction and manufacturing, as well as white-collar jobs? Wal-Mart will bring no more development to these communites than a Jewel or Dominicks would. And I would argue with the reputation that Wal-Mart has for such aggressive and predatory business practices (deserved or not) it will have a chilling effect on the surrounding community, scaring off smaller businesses that might be interested in set up shop there if there were a different retail anchor in the area.
The fact of the matter is that the entire Wal-Mart debate has devolved into something really simplistic, and the city council is being asked, on the one hand, to open up the city to a multinational corporation with a reputation for screwing over the community, and on the other, to protect the city from that same corporation. Nobody is seeking real solutions to the lack of quality shopping on the South and West sides, andthe labor movement isn't seeking a solution to the lack of organized workers in those communities.
Al Conif: The American Apparel girls are generally cute, but the one smooching the guy in the airport is a little to thin in the caboose for my tastes. Besides, AA is a union-busting company, in spite of their talk about integrated manufacturing and bringing good jobs back to LA. They get no business from me.
Of course you ignore lobbying efforts by Unions.
TIF's don't hurt mom and pops either. A lot of mom and pop developers are building condos buildings using TIFS.
The business model for retailing has changed dramatically.
No one bitches about Target or Kmart.
Do those stores pay more than WalMart?
So, Kevin, you are basing your hopes on the return of more steel mills to Chicago? Is that really what you are saying? Hey, I'd love to have more high-paying blue collar jobs here, but counting on a widescale revival of the Industrial Revolution in the Midwest isn't my cup of tea.
Are there other industries you have in mind? Bio-tech, for instance? Anything?
And what's wrong with preparing poor people for service jobs that do offer a shot at the middle class (yes, there are many of them)?
The one wal-mart that opened in the city several years ago recieved 25,000 applications for employment the first 2 days it began accepting them!! 25,000!!
According to Wal-Marts own P.R. that is. When some reporters asked for proof of this they got: "Er..um...no comment".
Big plusses for Vise bringing up TIFs and corporate welfare. Nobody seems to mind that the richest corporation in the world needs a handout courtesy of your tax dollars to unfairly compete in the market.
Retail jobs hire most anyone and give people a chance to learn and grow and expand their resume if they wish.
Union jobs hire mostly insiders and give people a dead end career where you learn to do just enough work to not shine above anyone, and then get faced with zero chances of finding a job in another field after your company closes down because of inefficiency.
Anyone who doubts Wal-mart's impact on a retail corridor need to go no further than 95th and western. Evergreen Park opened a Wal-Mart 24 mos ago on the NW corner and since this time the chicago corners have been demolished and are slated for brand new retail ranging from a dollar store to a starbucks coffee shop panera bread, cold stone creamery and potbelly sandwich shop within 1/2 mile of the site.
What Chicago should as is for Wal Mart to contribute a few million dollars to the CTA.
It's easy for white liberals on the North Side, who have easy access to jobs, public transportation, and inexpensive, high-quality groceries to wring their hands about the cultural effects of Wal-Mart in the city. And it's very hard for an alderman like Anthony Beal, who really does have a ward with very few opportunities for shopping to say no to Wal-Mart.
Yeah and whatever you do don't blame *anyone* who had the power *cough* to prevent that decline in living standards or *anyone* who has the power *cough* to improve them today. What hypocrites those white liberal north siders are.
Oh Hi, I'm a South Side alderman. Hey Mayor Daley, listen, white liberal north siders aren't maintaining our streets and keeping us from having good public transportation! But hey I love you and will be sure to help you get elected yet again. You could say I'm your willing loyal servant. What's that? Wal*Mart's taking us out to a fancy dinner again? Awesome!
Of course you ignore lobbying efforts by Unions.
Most corner stores like the one run by your imagined "Pakistani" are unionized?
It's hilarious how so many supposed 'free market' anti-tax libertarians love the *excuse me* 2nd largest corporation in the world which just happens to be one of the largest receivers of corporate welfare. So much for that 'free market' eh Ross? Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor right?
I am befuddled as to why so many of you think wal-mart won't provide 'good' jobs.
If I'm following your logic, you think that since there are no jobs in these communities now, and that since there have not been jobs in these communities for years,that magically 'good' union jobs are going to appear??
You need development to get more jobs to get more money to spend more money and to demand more store/restaraunts. You have to start somewhere.
Noones just going to open up 'Union Jobs-r-us'
You need a base to start with, and I don't exactly read about any other corporations asking alderman in these districts if they can build there!!
Let's see, keep no jobs in the community, or allow some building and a store and get some jobs and development?? Not a hard dicision.
I hope some alderman do say no, we'll see a couple of years down the line how sorry they will be. Their district will still look like the ghetto, and others will begin a slow ascent to the middle class. Of course, that will be the white middle classes fault too, and wal-mart. Come to think of it, damn wal-mart for making us invade Iraq, and for creating hurricane Katrina. Damn them.
Navin- You don't have to believe reality it if you don't want to. I distinctly remember seeing pictures of the piles of filled out apps on the news. Sure it might not have been 25,000, but since it sure looked like over 25,000 and the news reporters kept saying how they couldn't believe how many were there, and seeing the line of people out the door and around the building- I'll stick with 25,000.
I am not a libertarin and I think corporations should pay more tax and the mega rich should pay more tax by the way.
If I could I would get rid of a lot of the tax deductions the weathly and corporations can take.
I also think all charitible orgs and churches should be taxed.
Can a person make the argument that they, much in the way corporations argue, are a vital asset to the community deserving of tax breaks? If I bring happiness to Taylor street can I get a tax credit?
But seriously yes, many poor people want Walmart in close proximity because they are cheaper and the poor travel to get to them anyway - why not allow Chicago to collect the tax on merchandise sold there?
Whether the poor should be supporting a business as unethical and as disrespectful to employees as Walmart is another story. I don't think it's possible to convince poor people to boycott it unless there are comparable alternatives.
Oh god, I am endorsing Walmart.
If I'm following your logic, you think that since there are no jobs in these communities now, and that since there have not been jobs in these communities for years,that magically 'good' union jobs are going to appear?? You need development to get more jobs to get more money to spend more money and to demand more store/restaraunts. You have to start somewhere. Noones just going to open up 'Union Jobs-r-us' You need a base to start with, and I don't exactly read about any other corporations asking alderman in these districts if they can build there!!
mark: You're close, but not all the way there yet. If you follow the logic of my argument, you do indeed need a base to lure development to a community. I don't believe, however, that service sector jobs are the base that you can build develoment off of. I am arguning, instead, that you need jobs that actually add value to the economy by generating wealth. Whether you open a Wal-Mart or a whole series of service-sector businesses, the bottom line is that they are just economic pass-throughs. Money simply passes from one person to another to another, and no real wealth is created. On the other hand, businesses like construction and manufacturing take raw materials and add value to them, creating wealth. That wealth, especially in a unionized work environment, tends to translate into wages that are then put out into a community, thereby generally raising the standards are living in those communities.
You are correct that nobody will open a "Good Union Jobs-R-Us" in the community. But with the amount of energy that aldermen are expending trying to open a "Shit Jobs-R-Us" in the community, you'd think they would have at least tried to bring manufacturing jobs that weren't exploitive into the community, or used their power to work with the construction unions to open up more jobs to South and West side Chicagoans, instead of importing more carpenters from St. Charles to build the downtown. If we had more people from the communites that are crying for Wal-Marts working in the trades downtown, they wouldn't be crying for Wal-Mart.
Frankly, I find the whole "we should be grateful to the capitalist for taking pity on us and giving us a job" argument nauseating.
that AA guy looks like an usher. man, i hate that ad.
"On the other hand, businesses like construction and manufacturing take raw materials and add value to them, creating wealth."
Absolutely.
But what do you intend to manufacture here, in Chicago, that can't be made cheaper or more efficiently than in other parts of the world? I am not trying to be a smart ass, but until you deal that part of your idea in much more depth, you are breezing over the foundation of your agreeable theory. All you've thrown out is steel, which, while undergoing a revival of sorts, is hardly going to produce the blue-collar paradise you and many others seek.
I would say we need to produce more than homes, buildings and steel. That is quickly becoming an outdated concept for parts of the world that experienced the first waves of the Industrial Revolution a century or more ago. We need to think beyond the blue-collar world--we need to think technology, ideas, shit like that not, not just steel. We need to think more white collar (though it wouldn't hurt to boost the city's efforts at vocational training--we'll always need welders, for instance). Sure, we will never catch up with Silicon Valley and Austin and the Boston area on some things, but I don't see why we can't do more.
And if it's steel mills, tell me how this can go beyond more than a relatively few reclaimed jobs. And tell me how, in the long run, we mount massive competition against foreign steel. You clearly know this issue, so perhaps you can educate us.
Prince Valiant haircut...check, red usher vest...check, Wicker Park here I come. I'll be exploring young art student's butt cracks in no time.
kevin- I agree. Better jobs are better jobs. But if you don't have jobs, why would you turn down an offer to crate SOME jobs??
I have no clue why the alderman don't try to get better industry in their districts, maybe they have?? But, there are reasons all the industry has since left- but that's another argument. I think some of the alderman that were too concerned with bread basket ideas got voted out recently- Tillman for one. I think some of the citizens in that community are finally discovering why their lot in life hasn't improved for the last 20 years, and might be demanding some change for once. Although they did put Stroger in office I guess.
I for one, don't see how you can turn down an offer to create jobs and provide goods to a community, especially when that community is in dire need of exactly that.
There are so many light industries out in the burbs, from silicon chips to pallets. There are also new industries in the "green" market. Maybe Daley could improve his green profile and keep glad-handing his business base by luring some green industries here.
If you think you can get a major mfg to these areas of the City. You are few frech fries short of Happy Meal!
All the mfg. jobs that have been created even in the Auto Industy have left the cities for rural Ky., In. and Tx.
At least Wal-Mart is something better then nothing. Besides they will just move to burbs next to Chicago and take any sales tax revenue from the City.
Wal-Mart is already in the burbs. Has been for years.
Wal-Mart is already in the burbs. Has been for years.
That's why they so desperately want to crack the urban market.
Tell that to Ross.
I know it's already in the burbs. I don't live under a rock.
Then explain your comment "they will just move to burbs next to Chicago and take any sales tax revenue from the City." That's exactly what they don't want to do.
I am not sure they are right next to Chicago like Chicago is on one side of the street and a burb on the other. They will just buy a foot out of Chicago. That is the point Ferdy!
And my point is that they are outside of Chicago so I have no idea what your point is. If they can't get the city to cooperate, they'll take their toys and play somewhere that will attract people in Englewood out to the suburbs with their tax dollars? Those folks do that anyway! You're not making any sense.
The Evergreen Park Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what will happen if the Wards don't allow them in. Evergreen is surrounded by the City of Chicago on three sides, I would venture to guess that 97% of the people who shop at the Evergreen Park Wal-Mart are from Chicago. Would you rather have those tax dollars going to Evergreen Park, or would you prefer they go to a much larger municipality, like, say, CHICAGO? You have about 20 suburbs that are brushed up against this City. Wal-Mart has plenty of options. Go to Chicago where they're putting up a fight, or go to the suburbs and still draw the same clientle? The choice is ours. I side with the stores being in Chicago. And it's not like I'm a shopper of any big store. I religiously frequent the mom and pops of this great city of ours.
Kevin, the union thing is interesting. So too is the industry aspect of it. On the one hand, industry has long since fizzled in this country. It's gone and it isn't coming back, at least in the sense of tangent goods. Vise said it: other countries are doing it cheaper. You also have to realize that the importance of unions is being minimized by cheap labor. On several occassions, I've heard you fight for illegal immigrants and amnesty. Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, didn't invent the scab worker. But that have made more and more competition for him. Why? Because they will do things for a half of the cost. I support the unions, 78% of my friends are union men, but the sad reality is that in many cases, their days are numbered. Why? Because someone else is doing it cheaper.
Bringing a Wal-Mart into an area that doesn't have any shopping, like proposed ones on the former sites of Ryerson steel is good. Why? Because industry is dead and so too are the job opportunities in those communities. It also gets sales tax flowing back into the city or, more specifically, those communities. You can bet that in addition to offering those people jobs, Wal-Mart will be doing things for the residents of the community. Those tax revenues will probably be zipped up into something that will be rolled back into those communities, at least partially, and the people of Pullman and Gresham won't drive or ride the bus over to nearby Evergreen Park and send their money somewhere else. Understand?
I'm surprised I'm saying this, but I'm actually in agreement with Vise77 again. The US is no longer the industrial capitol of the World. It won't ever be again. But an opportunity awaits for us to get educated and use our educations to further our plight. Sitting around trying to stuff the Wal-Mart genie back in the bottle isn't possible. She's too fat and saggy. And think about the fact that other Third World countries are now emerging through industry, the way we once were. It's an opportunity that those people deserve too. Using Kevin's logic, everyone deserves that, as well as an education. So why not let them use it to prosper themselves?
It is a pipe dream for anyone to think that the city council can have a significant effect on the amount of good manufacturing jobs in Chicago. They can only do a small amount to attract manufacturers into the city, or keep some from leaving, with such things as tax breaks (and, of course, many of the same people who are blaming the city council for the lack of jobs would call that corporate welfare). The reality is that companies are going to produce goods where it is cheaper, no matter what. There are many people in Asia who are willing to work at wages that are much, much lower than in the United States(and certainly an urban city like Chicago where the wages are even higher). As a result, the amount of manufacturing jobs is going to decrease. To expect the city council to do something about this is extreamly naive. And to prevent new jobs from coming just because you liked the old jobs better is just not rational. It is unfortunate that so many of the people who are adamately against Wal-Mart in the lower income areas of the city clearly know very little about those areas. The fact is any increase of jobs boosts development. People have money to spend and they will now be able to spend it at other places, such as mom-and-pop stores that everyone seems to think get hurt by Wal-Mart. The increase in sales tax revenue will allow the city to provide more services. It would be extraordinarally bad policy for the city to ban Wal-Mart and forgo this revenue (as it did with the Wal-Mart that is now in Evergreen Park).
Read "The Wal-Mart Effect" by Charles Fishman
He presents both sides of the wal-mart conundrum in as unbiased a manner as one can.
As for the jobs wal-mart creats. WalMart Employees will never make a liveable wage. Nor can WalMart afford to pay its employees more and still make a profit. The vast majority of Wal-Mart Employees are the second and supplemental sources of income for families. Further, if the employees were to try to band together and Unionize WalMart would close its store. Its happened several times in the past.
"The vast majority of Wal-Mart Employees are the second and supplemental sources of income for families."
Exactly. And that is why it is so absurd that you have these moronic aldermen and other activists complaining that Wal-Mart does not offer a living wage. The jobs are not intended to be for those who are the sole supporter of their families. If you walk into any Wal-Mart or other big-box retailer you will see that the overwhelming majority of the front-line workers are young people. They are high-school students or college students. Many times it is these people's first job. Other employees take the job as a secondery source of income when their spouse is the breadwinner. If the city council passes the big box ordinace it will destroy, in many cases, opperatunies for people to begin their work career and/or pay for college and for many married couples to have a two-earner family. That is who these jobs go to, not single earners raising a family. Should the city-council also require that waiters, bus-boys, and others pay a living wage? What about the people who work the concession stands at Navy Pier? If a law like the one they are discussing is passed a huge amount of businesses would close (and many that would have opened would not) and there will be much less jobs in Chicago. The people who are most against Wal-Mart are usually rich liberals who have rarely been to the inner-city neighborhoods they claim to be championing. I think they subconsciously take up this cause because it makes them feel good about themselves to believe that those who have what they consider to be "lesser" jobs are exploited. That makes them feel that they have things good compared to other people while they could also tell themselves that they are helping those who they feel superior to. Those who actually live in the inner-cities are usually far more supportive of big-box stores. Unfortunetely, those who pay attention to the unions are more likely to vote in these off-year elections.
That's a good point MK. It also ties into the fact that because these are ancillary incomes, they go to high school and college aged kids. If they go to high school and college aged kids in a city with the gang problems we have, they can help take kids off the street and keep them working toward an education. I realize the lure of the streets is way too much for some people, $8 an hour is nothing compared to standing on a corner for a couple of hours to knock down a couple hundred, but think about the positive effects it will have on some people.
I work in workforce development, these are difficult issues for the City to address, let alone solve. I think the unfortunate reality is that, in terms of jobs and raising the standard of living for city residents, it doesn't really matter if Wal Mart comes in or not.
It's largely a question of education and career preparedness, an area where CPS, the City and Parents are failing to create a future that includes a livable city. If all future generations are qualified to do is work at wal mart we are in serious trouble. Investing in career education that gets kids professional certificates out of high school to work in 'real' industries (sectors such as high-road manufacturing, technology fields, and transportation, warehousing and logistics) are the only way to elevate future income and retain businesses that aren't wal mart.
The tax revenue argument is moot, as it will take years for the income taxes to equal the subsidies being handed out to Wal Mart. Demanding companies pay a living wage will only force companies to look to cities without these anti-capitalist restrictions.
Yes, poor neighborhoods need development and infrastructure, but it shouldn't be of the homogenous variety where one store is expected to meet the needs of every resident in the area. This sets a bad precedent, and doesn't encourage the type of economic marketplace that will help these communities sustain themselves over time. It also pushes these neighborhoods into a company town type situation like the original Pullman development. Workers at these stores will end up giving their paychecks right back to their employers, because there is no consumer choice in these areas. Developing a diverse base of businesses in a variety of industries is truly what the City should be encouraging.
I love buying stuff cheap and saving money as much as the next person, but it's ludicrous to think of any single company is the devil. Folks can rail against corporate consumerism all they want, but the reality is that they have choices, and wouldn't be forced to deal with Wal Mart being the only game in town.
If Chicago doesn't want wal mart, Chicago won't get a wal mart. The Mayor is far too powerful for anything to 'just happen.' The real winners, as usual, will be the developers and construction companies that receive the trickle down of all the subsidy going into it, and the Aldermen who will continue to trade on large development projects 'on behalf' of city residents.
"The tax revenue argument is moot, as it will take years for the income taxes to equal the subsidies being handed out to Wal Mart."
First of all, I'm not sure what "subsidies" you are talking about. Wal-Mart is certainly not requiring the city to provide subsidies in order for it to locate in Chicago neigborhoods. It wants to open more locations in the city but the council wants to force it and other big boxes to pay a certain wage (which will undoubtadly cause these retailers to not open nearly as many locations as they would, which will result in much fewer jobs). Second of all, I was talking about sales taxes, not income taxes. In fact, I specifically mentioned the word "sales tax" in my post. Did you forget about that form of tax? If the city prevents these stores from opening up it means people will be forced (or encouraged) to shop in the suburbs. This will result in a huge loss of sales tax revenue and there will be both sales tax increases and fewer city services such as education. It would be extraordinarally silly if the city keeps begging the state for funds if it runs out of money for things such as the CTA. Asking for money from the state to make up for its irresponsible decisions that cause a lack of revenue would be extraordinarally hollow and would fall on deaf ears in Springfield.