Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
We've had a few hours to digest the hundreds of thousands of job-losses announced this morning, so now might be the perfect time to spring this on you: Wal-Mart would like to put as many as 5 new stores in Chicago. The Tribune is reporting that a new push is being put together to start out with a new store in the 21st ward, and take it from there.
There's a couple ways of looking at this.
First: Right now, any jobs are good jobs, and between the construction jobs it'll take to put the big boxes up and the staff to run the place, it's an easy way to put some cash back into the Chicago economy. Plus, the old sawhorse gets brought back out - if people are going to shop at these places, why should the suburbs get the revenue? (Side argument: people are going to the suburbs to avoid the sky-high sales taxes in Cook County, duh.)
Second: Just because the economy is in the shitter right now doesn't mean that it'll always be. We shouldn't just roll over and let Wal-Mart come in and do whatever they want just so we get some low-paying jobs with no benefits out of the bargain. They may promise tons of the now-famous price rollbacks, but that doesn't mean that we'll still want to roll them back at some point later down the road.
Third: Some sort of compromise? Pass a new big-box ordinance that isn't as restrictive as the one the Mayor famously vetoed back in '06. Let Wal-Mart come in and do some business, make sure that the employees are being done right by, and put some jobs in some rougher neighborhoods that could use any sort of economic investment they can get anyways.
Okay, so it's not the best of all the worlds - but in an economy where anyone is grasping at any economically viable straws, Wal-Mart opponents and union leaders are probably going to have a harder push against the retail superpower than it was a couple years back when things were hunky-dory financially.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Let the shitstorm begin!
What about the small, local businesses that will close because of the competition of Walmart, and the jobs they provide? I'm not sure if this applies to a city like Chicago, but in some communities I remember this being a huge argument against Walmart coming in.
At first glance, I thought this was AlbanyParkour vs. Wal-mart.
ZERO NET GAIN! (at the very best)
Walmart will supplant a lot of shopping that gets done all over the city at both big and small shops. For every person who gets a job at Walmart someone else looses a job somewhere else. This is not Bumpkinville, Tennessee; the Chicago's retail market is saturated and Wal-mart only takes.
Besides, I think the new logo looks like a Kurt Vonnegut asshole self portrait.
Don't forget the inevitable TIF / Tax corporate welfare giveaway.
You know, if we could bring Wal-Mart into the city without such things, I might have less of a problem with the whole thing, despite my unoriginal dislike of the retailer (which, we must admit, actually is doing better than other retailers right now, not something to sniff at). But, I am sure, we will give tax dollars or some sort of breaks to Wal Mart for the privilege of buying stuff from the company and getting a few relatively low paying jobs at the expense of local merchants.
If so, it would be ironic, because Wal-Mart might use TIF bucks to locate in a blighted area. But at this point, the state's TIF system is broken beyond repair, so I tend to oppose all such set-ups.
Everyone makes a really good point.
But as a consumer, do I really care about "For every person who gets a job at Walmart someone else looses a job somewhere else"?...or do I care about getting goods for the cheapest cost available?
It is not a "Zero Net Gain" because after the "job for job" point, the cost of goods will go down for the consumer.
Because we don't have enough cheap consumer goods and low-paying, non-union jobs to begin with?
I don't shop at these places because I can often find better prices elsewhere, better selection and better service too. They're great if you're loading up the SUV to make the Oregon trail, but my needs are quite modest.
Target is way better than Walmart.
I don't care about union and non-union jobs. If people don't want to work there, that's their problem. Beggars can't be choosers. These stores are strategically placed to optimize customers and have an employee base that needs the job more than the job needs them.
I don't stand by some of Walmart's ethics, but there are some damn smart people running that company.
Yeah, fuck poor people and those with limited education, I want some cheap electronics.
"Beggars can't be choosers?" How about "are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses??
Harpo Marx would slap you silly boy.
You seriously make the stupidest arguments. If you don't shop at Walmart, why should you care about about their wages? You're certainly not contributing to them. And who says anything about limited education? Are you saying that only poorly educated people can and will work at Walmart? What about the people that just can't find another job? Or people that would be happy to work at Walmart to make ends meet? Last I checked, putting something for "Previous Employment" sure looks better than nothing at all.
If you shop somewhere else, good. You are supporting those businesses and the wages of their employees.
Coming from the gilded pen of someone who wrote "Beggars can't be choosers." I'll take that as a compliment.
Big box retail is a dead-end job for the majority of employees. Advancement is extremely limited, educational background necessary is minimal (Target and Wal-Mart offer "continuing education" in the form of in store computer testing that quizzes employees on products) and the turnover rate at these stores is staggering based on highly dubious labor practices including schedule modding (cutting employee hours randomly or giving them shifts that they can't work) and simple at will terminations.
But hey, fuck them right? A job is a job, let them eat cake or whatever.
So, because retail generally is a dead end, we should not have retail jobs? You fail to note that for some people, retail is a stepping-stone job.
So dry cleaners, Starbucks, McDonald's, dollar stores, and gas stations prepare employees for the real world? At least the "continuing education" offered at Walmart can prepare some of these folks for a step up to Sears, Macy's, Von Maur, Jewel, or some thing else. As Matilda said, it's a stepping stone for some. Didn't you have a part time job in high school or college (assuming you are not in high school or college)? What skills did those prepare you for? Mine prepared me for a now outdated form of CPR. And I'm sure wherever you worked, there were people not like you because it was their job and put food on their table as opposed to something their parents made them do to develop responsibility. Come on Albany. You think the guy scrubbing toilets at a truck stop is doing that at gun point? That might be all he can do. And that is better than doing nothing.
I don't think people travel to the suburbs to avoid the city and county taxes. The money spent on gas would nullify any savings. I think people prefer to shop at these stores for the simple reason that they can get more than 50% of their shopping done there. I've never seen Walmart as an anchor store to a mall (another dying breed) like I have Target, but they have been flagship stores in large shopping centers. I'll go to a Target out of my way to get what I need, not save on taxes. Some people might think that way, but that is more about principles than pocket savings.
The only parties that would benefit from this are Walmart and whatever TIF slush fund(s) that get the tax money from the deal.
The unemployed in this city are not going to be helped by becoming minimum-wage stock boys and greeters.
Albanyparkour...good points, no doubt.
Although, I don't agree 100% with "I can often find better prices elsewhere".
Maybe individually...but take a significant basket of goods and Wal-Mart's Economies of Scale clearly give it a competitive advantage over other stores.
If it was true that other places have lower prices than Wal Mart, then there would not be one issue at all over whether a Wal Mart should be built. One of the points/counter-points of a Wal-Mart being built is the lower prices they bring.
While not everyone shops via "laoding up the SUV", lower prices will help a number of consumers.
I'll hit up target when I need multiple things; ice scraper, shampoo, a frying pan, cheap undershirts, and a birthday card. All those products are usually from pretty standard brand names across the board and I usually save a couple of bucks.
I don't care about union or non union either, I'm all about having to visit the least amount of stores.
Cheap goods are very deceiving. Wal-Mart may have the edge on competitors due to their formidable buying power, but that power also puts a choke-hold on employee wages/benefits. They pride themselves on running very lean, and are militantly anti-union. No union contract labor would be used to build their stores. Wal-Mart's suppliers are squeezed dry of any sustainable margins, which in turn puts the squeeze on their employees. Consumers flock to low prices, especially in this economic climate, but many fail to see the greater social and economic cost of seeking out bottom-floor prices. The unfortunate reality is that lower-income families neither have the luxury nor the incentive to see beyond the $10 pair of jeans or the 80 cent jar of mayo.
I think the answer in this age of globalization is to reject the race to the bottom, whether it be related to prices, wages, standard of living, or quality assurance (product, the environment, etc.).
I have been to Walmart maybe twice in my life, but after reading the book "Nickeled and Dimed" I would never shop there again.
(AFter reading that book I will never again hire a Merry Maid or any home cleaning franchise either).
My parents live in a teeny little town and Walmart is trying to bully its way into this sleepy little village. They've been at it for several years now. What really irks me is that there is a mall like not even 2 miles away from where they want to build. This mall has stood empty now for almost 10 years. I don't understand why they won't just use the space this mall is on instead of asphalting over forest and farmland. The guy who owns the land is going to make more money selling it to Walmart instead of letting it go for a new subdivision (like the area needs another subdivision, but it's better than a frikking Walmart mukking up the area and creating tons of more traffic. Not to mention the lights from the parking lot that would be glaring into peoples homes 24/7.
It's all greed. The ONE guy who stands to make a few thousand more if he sells to Walmart at the expense of the villagers who don't want it. I've got a feeling that eventually this guy and Walmart will win out or they wouldn't have been going at it for so long now.
...but many fail to see the greater social and economic cost of seeking out bottom-floor prices.
Once again, I don't completely agree with this.
We are in a day and age of communication. People know the situaion and it doesn't matter. Consumers want low prices.
I just don't buy this "feel good" reasoning that "if the people knew" b/s. A significant number of people know how the Wal-Mart system works...and people will go to where the cheapest prices are.
@Ingrid...are you saying it is greedy for people to want lower prices?
Because they have no choice, isn't that awesome?
Hooray for the race to the bottom. Soon we'll all shop at Wal-Mart whether we want to or not.
I think that is great. It is your right to support your local guy...just like it is my right to shop and expect the lowest prices available.
It should be the tax payers right to not give them the corporate welfare that they get that increases their upperhand in the marketplace either.
Navin...great point. But let's skip to the 21st Century and realize there are other means to supply the demand for goods.
People with resources with always have choices for their demand (see access to the internet)...people with limited resources will have limited choices.
I'm confident that our Chicagoist Community has resources to meet their demand no matter how many Wal-Marts are built.
It should be the tax payers right to not give them the corporate welfare that they get that increases their upperhand in the marketplace either.
So should Wal-Mart "not" meet the demand for their supplies?
Irishman,
I didn't say that. The greediest ones are the ones who stand to make the most money:
Walmart, and the guy who wants to sell the land to them when there is a vacant mall on a HUMONGOUS long not 2 miles away from the spot they're going after. This mall sits in a highly trafficked area, very industrialized.
Why do they insist on going into a village when it's been made known that the villagers don't want the store right there?
This guy doesn't want the land zoned for houses because he won't make as much, but then again...he doesn't live there and won't have to look at a Walmart from his front window either, so what does he care?
There are many families out there who are just scraping by and will do anything to pay less and get more.
But...we all need the money, and some of us will sacrifice a few dollars for the better good. I would always pay more to support my local guy than put money in the coffers of the likes of Walmart.
Ingrid, I see what you are saying...but if you are telling me a business owner is out to supply goods for people and make as much money as he can, then I say fair enough. I can gaurantee that "local guy" you reference is out to make money too.
some of us will sacrifice a few dollars for the better good.
I think that is great. It is your right to support your local guy...just like it is my right to shop and expect the lowest prices available.
You sure like to throw the "G" word around...but let's be clear. Greed is when you give a $400,000 mortgage to a person who makes $12/hour knowing you can put that mortgage in a bond and sell it...basically washing your hands of any risk and taking your commission.
Greed is NOT when a business owner is looking for the cheapest place to build a store.
If objections to Walmart, from city government right down to the folks on the street, are so heavy, why isn't the city promoting and siting major grocery and pharmacy chains and affordable clothing outlets? There are food deserts out there, folks,in neighborhoods that many of us don't live in and never see. If Walmart is the only corporation willing to invest in drastically underserved areas of Chicago, where local businesses have died, I see no reason not to open the area to a merchandiser lower-income families can afford.
If wal-mart wants to expand in Chicago, fine, but they should be required to meet the some minimal conditions to ensure it mutually benefits the city and the company.
For starers: There should be a realistic living wage requirement. Not something outrageous, but a wage in which full-time workers would be above the poverty line after a standard vetting period. Also, benefits should be offered at the same rate to ALL employees, thus negating Wal-marts strategy of over-hiring but limiting the number of hours anyone can work.
Another point is that the construction of Wal-mart stores should be subject to the approval of Chicago's urban planners. E.g. placing the store close to the street with parking either in the back or on the roof--thereby reducing the island anchor effect that increases crime after the store shuts down, and reduces traffic to surrounding city businesses (different traffic patterns emerge in car-oriented suburbs).
Ha ha ha ha ha ha...anyone who thinks Walmart cares about the folks on the street is dreaming.
Also, Irishman, it's not like Walmart has to look for the cheapest place around.
They own the biggest market share in this country for grocery stores. In 2006 (or 07, I can't remember) just for the grocery side, they made $232.9 billion!!!
In Chicago they are the 2nd most profitable grocery store with a 12.7% of the market share (behind Albertson's which has a 31% market share).
So why can't they just for once put the little guy ahead of their corporate interests?
If you read the book Nickeled and Dimed you'd see just how callous they are towards their employees, so why would they care about the people in a small town who don't want a big ugly Big Box store right in their midst?
I have a solution if you don't want WalMart in your city.
DON'T SHOP THERE!!!!!
WalMart is a business. Businesses need customers to purchase their products/services. A lack of sufficient customers will lead to a store not being open.
However, judging by the fact the WalMart in the city is jam packed with customers it certainly appears that a large segment of Chicagoans want a WalMart here. You may find this hard to believe, but there are people in the city who can't afford to drink the trendiest beer or shop in the hippest boutiques.
WalMart makes life better for them, no matter how many times you read Nickeled and Dimed to feel good about your rich person shopping habits.
As usual, I find myself on the same side as Albany Parkour, even though his obnoxious behavior makes me want to join the other side out of spite.
I'm not opposed to big chains per se. I lived in Mexico, where they have all sorts of little locally owned shops that offer few options and always run out of what you need. And here in Chicago, there are plenty of local overpriced boutiques full of hipster clothes, hookahs and other junk I don't want. These big chains offer variety and rarely run out of stock -- and they have things you need and want at prices you can afford.
The problem is that Wal-Mart is a bad corporate citizen, actively engaged in hostile acts against workers, consumers and communities. It could still offer "everyday low prices" without this bad behavior, but it is much easier for them to continue as they are.
Of course, Target does all the same things, but no one seems to mention that? Why? Because Target lets us go to the Art Institute for free on Thursdays. The difference is that for decades, Wal-Mart never felt like it had to pretend to care about the communities it destroyed, and did whatever it wanted with a kind of pride. Target also opposes unions, builds ugly, environmentally damaging Big Box stores and sources from Chinese factories, but does so quietly. They give to charity and make sure you know it, and they sponsor events and so forth. Just don't pay attention to the 13-year-old factory worker behind the curtain.
Wal-Mart and all the really big Big Box stores are bad. They don't have to be, of course. They could provide goods and services at reasonably low prices without destroying communities, without exploiting employees, without destroying the environment (although Wal-Mart has at least made some strides in eco-friendliness in the last few years) -- but it is easier to just do whatever they want without worrying about the consequences.
Now of course, they are running out of options. They have saturated the small-town and suburban markets, where they were welcomed with open arms. Now all Wal-Mart's growth potential is in our Big Cities and in foreign markets. Unfortunately, Walmart will still do whatever it wants overseas, but Big Cities are a different matter.
We have a right and a responsibility to demand accountability from any business, large or small, that operates in our community. I don't oppose Walmart coming to Chicago off-hand -- as long as they play nice. Build stores that fit in the neighborhood, instead of big Boxes with even bigger parking lots. Let your workers unionize if they want -- it's not that big a deal. Try sourcing from American factories (they do exist, even yet), and give your employees some decent healthcare so we don't have to pay for it through medicare.
If you agree to the above, you can open as many stores in Chicago as you want. Otherwise ...
Your argument is much more valid than Albany's. I've read the sugar-coated Sam Walton autobiography as well as the countless articles and periodicals on Walmart that make you shake your head in disbelief.
But my main point was that in this economy, people can't be picky about where jobs come from (as long as they are legit). Past reports showed that Walmart wanted to build in neighborhoods that have been struggling for decades, and build on lots that serve no other purpose than collecting trash. The construction of a Walmart, as well as a full-time and part-time staff will bring much needed jobs. These will be created jobs because people who were otherwise unemployed will fill them, and ones leaving other jobs open vacancies for others to fill. This is not to say local businesses won't suffer, but it sounded like retail wasn't doing well, if it even existed, in these neighborhoods anyway.
At the same time, customers would have a place to shop, spend money, stimulate the economy. Regardless if it's crap, look at all the dollar stores?
But the bottom line is, if people don't want to work there, it's not a concentration camp. If people don't want to shop there, it's not like they can't get on the bus or get in a car like they have been doing and shop somewhere else.
Your comments seem to regard ethics and corporate structure. I agree with them. I have dealt with countless Illinois farmers who have been muscled on their crop prices thanks to Walmart's new organic and produce program. There are plenty of other businesses and departments and companies that exhibit the same behavior in the area and they aren't even on the dartboard.
While Walmart will be unlikely to fail, at least the building, if it becomes vacant, can host raves and an evanglical church.