Should Idaho Falls try the Chicago pay raise?

I think that its more than just those stores that need a minimum wage raise. The bigger ones are sometimes the ones that pay above minimum anyways.

Idaho minimum wage has not been raised in 10 years. Now think of how much gas prices alone have raised in the past 2! It’s not possible to live on minimum wage any more. It’s hardly possible to get to work on minimum wage. I think that we should forget about the big guys for now and focus on raising EVERYONE. Not a huge jump. What if we raised the state’s minimum wage 15 cents a year for.. say.. 10 years. that’s 1.50 after 10 years so it would go up to 6.65!!

I like the idea of the companies that can afford to pay more to actually do so, but I think right now we need to focus on the real problem, the little guys who consider a pay raise from trainee to be from minimum wage to 5.25.

That’s a silly argument. The minimum wage exists so the the 30 million Americans living on minumum wage can feed their families and pay the rent (at least try). Before minimum wage, corporations and companies took advantage of the undereducated and easily duped, and the government stepped in on moral grounds to protect workers.

There is a HUGE difference between $10 and $200 … mainly being that $10 is a fair amount that shows respect for a company’s employees without putting undue financial burden, and $200 is a random, asinine number that doesn’t make any sense.

Okay, 8B, then how about you tell me what would be a “reasonable” minimum wage? Save the smarmy replies and discuss this. What do you think a company like, say, Mellaleuca should pay its most basic employee? Is $5.15 really enough to provide for a decent standard of living in America? Have you ever lived on minumum wage, tried to pay rent, buy groceries, and saved for your kids’ futures on that kind of money?

I suspect the answer is no, but let’s talk about this.

For the record, I believe a decent minimum wage for Idaho, considering our lower cost of living and growing economy, should be $7.15 an hour. Actually, since the inception of the minimum wage laws, this would be right on par with the original amount, only accounting for inflation and higher cost of living.

ps. Regarding your smart-ass reply, I did not advocate the ten dollar amount, Chicago did. I commented back regarding Chicago’s Green City policies, and the discussion was taken back to the $10 figure by ThirdParty. So I never once stated that $10 should be the minimum wage in Idaho, no less $10.01 or $10.02.

Okeydokey, I’d like to focus this discussion back on to the topic. The minimum wage discussion is valid and just, and extremely related to this.

However, I hoped to generate discussion specifically about requiring ‘big box’ retailers to pay the higher wage and higher benefits, not to require a minimum wage increase.

To address that issue, the minimum wage increase has profound economical impacts. There is no scientific method that could dictate to the penny what amount it should be set at. I don’t know if the minimum wage really impacts job losses, product prices, or business relocations. I doubt if many of us locals know, since it’s debated without conclusion nationally.

I want to simply focus on requiring the identified big box retailers in Idaho Falls city limits to pay more to workers.

Could they afford it? Of course, especially Wal-Mart, one of the richest global corporations. They have become so rich on the backs of paying so little to their employees. This solution would likely make Bruce Newcomb proud, who was upset about so many Wal-Mart employees being on Idaho welfare.

Would they raise product prices? Again, not likely. These big box retailers thrive on slightly undercutting local business prices. If they raise their prices, we then shop elsewhere. No, they can afford the wages, and I believe they will keep the prices the same to be competitive.

In fact, the test would be our two Wal-Marts. How could the westside store justify jacking up prices 30% when we can drive three miles and save money? They would not, and they would grumble but you would see higher wages at the westside store and similar product prices.

Finally, would those big box retailers pull out of Idaho Falls? Doubtful, especially the westside Wal-Mart that just opened last year. They are not going to walk away from that investment so quickly.

I believe these big box retailers can easily afford the higher wage and benefits costs. I think the data has shown these big box retailers are competitively overmatched to local businesses, and all they do is generate thousands of workers living under poverty level.

I say it’s time to require them to pony up to their fair share.

Joe, as you have the question so narrowly focused, it leaves no room for discussion. I tried and you reined me in. So, to answer your question as stated with its constraints: No.

I’d love to ask you more questions in an attempt to understand where you’re coming from, but I can’t figure out how to word those questions while staying within the store-size/owner-wealth/employee-wage
delineators you’ve set up.

For instance, if it is true what you said about a minimum wage not being scientifically calculable, then how would you determine how much Wal-Mart’s “fair share” would be? But before I could ask you that question, I’d have to ask you: “What does ‘fair share’ mean to Joe Vandal?” And then I’d have to ask: “Who decides whether Joe has correctly defined “fair share?”

And then there are questions about what scientific methods were used in determining the 90,000 square foot store area and the $1 billion annual sales figure? On what criteria are these numbers based?

You see, all these numbers and phrases seem arbitrary and ambiguous to me.

One final note to JeremyPlo. I would find it extremely refreshing to have you give a direct answer to a direct question. Reading the pedestrian aspersions you cast in my direction is quite wearisome.

Now that I have answered your question, Joe, I’ll bow out of this thread.

Good day, gentlemen.

Every time i see minimum wage discussed, it frankly scares me. Government has proven time and again that when they meddle with a local economy, they succeed in breaking things.
So many points around a minimum wage discussion. Some with more impact to the outsider than others.
1) If you raise minimum wage, you have zero impact on the corporations you want to effect. The end result is that they pass that cost onto their customers through increased prices on services and goods. ONLY THE SMALL TOWN GUYS that already barely scrape through a margin to live on are affected, and adversely so… ever wonder why downtown is dead? It’s cuz small businesses couldn’t afford to stay in business. Now it’s nothing more than a bar and gift shop district. Raise minimum wage, you really just raise the cost of goods those minimum wage jobs support.
2) People who try to live, pay rent, support families on a minimum wage job have other social issues. Not the responsibility of anyone but themselves to manage their life. I’ve been on both sides of this fence. I’ve supported a family, paid rent, bought groceries on minimum wage (and yes, did it without the help of welfare of anykind). I’ve also been blessed with a job that doesn’t put me in that spot anymore. Minimum wage jobs are STARTING/ENTRY LEVEL positions, not a career goal. If you truly have to work minimum wage jobs, you should be doing so only to build skill base, not to stay there. It is not societies responsibility to pay (via increased cost of goods) job welfare to people with no goals and aspirations.
3)Free Market Works. yeah, sounds like a republican mantra, but, it does. If the employee doesn’t like his wage, and the employer isn’t willing to raise it, there are many more jobs out there. Might not be locally, but come on, half a million people in south east idaho, and you don’t think there’s jobs to support them? The only reason people get paid 5-6 dollars an hour, is because they are willing to. In larger cities where cost of living is higher (Denver for example), McDonalds pays starting wage of $10 an hour, cuz that’s what people are willing to work there for.
I’m unsure of whether the current minimum wage is right, fair, or just to anyone, but I do believe that government meddling in it will only upset the delicate nature of our smalltown economy, and un-necessarily so.

Ok, fair enuf. Targeted wage raise. What then about those that do work for small businesses, make minimum wage, and now have to find a way to afford the cost of goods increase. Or, what about the small business owner, who, now can’t compete against walmart’s wage rate and can’t get any good help anymore. I still hold that we endanger our local economy even by targeting the big guys, simply because, if we can target a local area with a tax increase, so too can they target a specific area with a price increase to cover it. What then, a price cap to keep them from reacting to the increased cost of doing business?

Rem - I think you said it best that the free market will work. If we increase the minimum wage and some companies decide to up their prices (thought most of them sell at MSRP anyway), customers will get the picture and find a store that doesn’t raise their prices. It’s a matter of survival. Major companies like Wal-Mart will sacrifice a few mil in profits for continued customer loyalty.

Let’s face it, all Wal-Mart has going for it are low prices. It’s not an enjoyable place to shop. So, raising prices in response to higher wages would be suicide.

Well, Joe, you sucked me back in – briefly.

You’ve made one comment that, quite simply, flies in the face of logic. You state that the big box stores “cause MORE locals to live in poverty and arguably have to rely on public asistance.” How can this possibly be? If the big box stores did not exist, and, thus, were not employing these people, where would these people be working? Would not “not working” put these people deeper into poverty? Maybe I’m missing something . . .

You say MORE. Well, as for as the minimum wage you want to impose on the big box stores goes that certainly gives a wide range, anywhere from what the wage is presently plus one penny on up to the total amount of currency currently in circulation. But the real point is that you still might be wrong! There are at least two other possible answers. ENOUGH and LESS.

But until you offer some basis for the numbers you’ve thrown out, and some justification for the assertions you’ve made, then any discussion is as productive as driving a nail into water – it’s easy to do, but why bother? When your done, you still ain’t got anything to hang your hat on.

But, if we raise minimum wage, do we not then just raise the mean wage rate that is considered poverty level? Market adjusts to absorb new costs, everyone making minimum wage makes more, but cost of living increase proportionately (seen this happen in Denver at the last minimum wage increase), and yeah, they are making more, but to what benefit, still poverty stricken.

I guess, rather than beating up big businesses for being big turds, lets focus on moving society forward as a whole, and find ways to move people forward rather than trying to find ways to make people at the bottom comfortable. (yes, i feel comfortable saying that, i’ve spent a good portion of my life on the bottom)

I see our difference of opinion. You see working for a low wage as better than not working at all. I agree with that.

I see minimum wage multiplied out at full time over a year is quite a bit below the federal poverty level.

That’s the logic. You are comparing the concept of work to a poverty figure, and they are apples and oranges.

I’m comparing wages earned to poverty level, which are apples and apples.

Many big box retailers aggravate the situation more because they hire so many part-time employees so they don’t have to pay benefits. That part-time work keeps the workers even further under the poverty level.

I agree working a minimum wage job is better than not working. I’m saying these big box retailers can afford to pay much more and Idaho Falls ought to follow Chicago’s precedent to require them to pay more.

They take more out, they can put a little more back in.

Fair enough, and I acknowledge that there are those people out there… But I believe there is a better solution than raising the minumum wage across the board, which, net effect just raised the bar at which you are considered poverty stricken. If we bump the bar 2/hr on minimum wage for example, all we’ve done is bumped cost of any labor involved in cost of goods and theirfor, raised cost of living, and by proxy, the level of income you need to make, to beat the poverty line.

In effect, rather than helping anyone, you’ve put the people that made $7 an hour at the new poverty line, cuz, they won’t get the $2/hr bump, they just get to congratulate themselves for making minimum wage all over gain, and, now they have to live in an economy adjusted so that they live with all the problems of minimum wage too. Helps few, hurts many.

I’ve always been a strong advocate of family. If you bring someone into the world that can’t make it, they are the families responsibility. My family operates that way, always has, always will. No one else in the economy will be hurt by that, and, everyone makes out ok in the end. If only everyone could be so humanitarian as to take care of their own. I personally would be starving in a gutter somewhere without the aid of my own family.

Ehhh, ok, if you pretend not to think the phrase ‘apples vs. oranges’ is an analogy but rather debating fruit I’m not sure I can engage you intellectually anymore.

I do not mean to distract anything, just debating the merits of the core suggestion.

I think we differ in what we think of as poverty. You are saying (unless I misunderstand you) that work at any pay is work and therefore that person is not in poverty. The statements you make are conveying that you think poverty is absolute zero dollars?

However, poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) is “an economic condition of lacking both money and basic necessities needed to successfully live such as food, water, education, and shelter.” Turns out there is much debate on definitions of poverty.

Can we agree that poverty is not absolute zero, though, but rather not enough money to provide for basics to live.

Yes that is ‘negotiable’ or different depending on the local cost of living and how many dependents you have (I don’t know aobut guilty conscience but ok).

Have you ever seen the FX television show ‘30 Days’, the one where he spent 30 days living on minimum wage? It was also featured on an Oprah.

I think most people will disagree with your statement that “If you work, you ain’t poor. Very simple indeed!”

I challenge you to work a minimum wage job part-time in Idaho Falls and tell me afterwards that you ‘ain’t poor’.

Minimum wage is not a living wage. That’s why you hear of people working two or three jobs (I worked 7 jobs concurrently at one time while in college).

But again, I didn’t mean to start a debate about minimum wage (so I should drop it and stop instigating it further, huh?).

My point was about the big box retailers. Maybe I do have a ’stick it to them’ attitude.

I have worked at one, I know the conditions there, and I know they are taking more money out that they leave here. Otherwise they would not put a store here, it’s a straightforward investment.

Local businesses do not take more of our money and ship it to Arkansas or wherever.

Therefore, the big box retailers should pay higher wages not only because they can easily absorb it, but because they the equation is a little fairer towards Idaho Falls’ economy (not just those workers).

Actually, I do have one point.

In the past few months, my free time has been dedicated to studying and understanding the situation in the worst parts of Africa, and I can’t help but scoff at the American concept of poverty. The American standard of poverty is unimaginable wealth to some people we share with world with - so perhaps instead of concentrating our efforts on making Americans fatter, maybe we should concentate our energy on helping raise the standard of living in third world countries.

Consider, for example, that having a non-dirt floor in your home puts you in the top 10% of the world’s wealth. Owning a microwave puts you in the top .01%. Those numbers are incredible! So maybe the American poverty is actually not that bad when compared to the REAL poverty that exists beyong our borders.

In other words, maybe we should stop bitching and start helping those who really need our help.

So what about people (referring to Remmelas earlier post) that don’t have supportive or loving families. Every day in my job I see kids being raised by crack whores, deadbeats, and otherwise uninvolved parents. These kids will never know the support of a loving family. A few will turn out okay. Most will not. And many due to their mom shooting meth while pregnant or being severely neglected / abused as kids will never be able to become well functioning adults.

And even for those who do somehow turn out fairly ok, college is a mythical dream for them since they have no family support to get them there and financial aid only pays part of the bill. They will be stuck in low paying jobs their whole life no matter how hard they work. For every high school drop out like Bill Gates you show me I’ll show you ten thousand who will not succeed like he did.

Chiasm,
I agree with you that minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living. It’s true there’s no perfect solution, but of all these posts, that seems the fairest.
I would suggest to you that these big box stores do cause damage to the local economy. They do take their profits out of the community and they do put our small businessmen OUT OF BUSINESS. I may be dating myself here a bit, but does anyone remember Samon’s? It didn’t take long for that wonderful business to close down when Home Depot showed up. That’s just one example. Now I don’t know what the employees were being paid, but they were locally owned and the profits stayed in our community and the owner had a vested interest in making sure the business decisions were good for both his business AND the community. So I agree with Joe that the big box stores should have to pay some sort of premium, or better yet, be REQUIRED to make some sort of local investment.

Thanks Remmelas I was wondering if someone would bring that up. And you may be right. I don’t think so, but time would tell.

Two reasons: recouping existing infrastructure costs and annexations.

The westside Wal-Mart is less than two years old and in a killer spot by a freeway entrance and busy avenues. I don’t see them trying to save a few bucks on payroll and move to just outside Idaho Falls’ west side going out on Broadway. They’d lose their killer spot, they’d lose the killer traffic they’re getting now, and they have to remain there x years just to recoup the investment of buying the land and building the store.

Second reason: annexation.

Suppose Home Depot says forget that, we’ll just relocate south to just outside city limits and avoid the pay requirement.

Hope they move several miles out of city limits because just outside means Idaho Falls could quickly expand and annex that same land to bring them back into the fold.

It would be brinkmanship and our city council would need the stones to do it, but if they want to stay in the area to milk money from this cow, then they can deal with a paying a slightly higher wage to our residents.

As for the stores that want to take their marbles home, they would be on the brink of not being profitable anyways.

I’m saying these big box retailers take such incredible amounts of money out of Idaho Falls that raising wages to the proposed levels would only cut the money going out by 15-25%.

I think the retailers would grumble but pay it because they’re earning huge sales in Idaho Falls.

I’m glad Chiasm brought up citizens who are mildly mentally retarded or developmentally delayed as employees. While there are many aspects of this discussion and big box stores I want to comment on, having read the discussion now for many days, before returning to address Chiasm’s comment about mildly DD/MR employees.

I have known many college students who wouldn’t have any employment without the big boxes and their more flexible schedules, as the students schedules changed the next term. Besides, when the student graduated from college, it always looks better to an employer to see someone who worked and attempted to balance many things at the same time, instead of a blank sheet of paper naming only the university from which the person being interviewed has graduated.

Additionally, no one said that all employees working at the big boxes were the sole earner for their families in every situation. Sure, it’s possible they could be, but it would be interesting to find out how many of the UT Ave. WalMart employees are people who are bringing in the second income in the family, instead of the entire income - thus the living wage. And I’m totally aware it may be the same person who works a “regular job” that picks up more hours at a big box for the money his/her family needs. However, both college students and employees who work a full-time job elsewhere, may have their health insurance covered by their day job (or parents, in the cse of college students). Or, perhaps a spouse provides the health insurance through his/her job and in return the other spouse provides more living money from a second job.

I agree with so many comments previousy posted by different writers in thi thread. Perhaps, in many ways this is the best discussion (both because it’s civil and contains a lot of thought and different viewpoints from those who have written posts in this thread. Thank to all of you for being willing to explore different ideas.

I think Remmelas has made many good points about the dangers of raising wages too fast and how decisions can be made at a corporate level to leave an area and perhaps it would be worse off than it was previously. Sorry Joe, I liked Economics in college- it is a subject that makes sense to me.

I also must say I think Jeremy hit a home run with his comment comparing what we have in the U.S. compared to African countires. Thanks Jeremy for adding that bit of reality to this discussion.

From what I’ve read of 8B’s comments, I have to agree with the last post. I believe, if a person can start at an entry level job, develop skills and a work ethic, which subsequently allow him/her to later apply for higher paying jobs, then I see the big boxes playing a useful roll in training some skills, in some employees. As an employer, who currently is advertising for a specializd position I need filled, I become discouraged looking at the lack of experience of so many who think they should command a higher hourly wage because they took AP classes in high school.

Big boxes pose tremendous challenges for those of us who have small businesses. But, they can also be a blessing. When I look at resumes or CV, I immediately look for employees who have worked at fast food or big box stores, who meet the other qualifications. That may seem odd to those of you who have never had to hire employees, but a couple of things I know from previous employees, is our small business looks like easy street compared to what the employees were asked to do in big boxes for less money. Additionally, when I advertise for someone who can “multitask” and I have a resume from a fast fod shift manager, I know that person knows the meaning of multitasking compared to some who thinks it means chewing gum while making a photocopy and talking about what they did last night to another employee. Third, despite it being hard to get everything done in small business with less people - and as I wrote Joe one night when everyone in the office was sick but me, when everyone else is gone, all the jobs/responsibilities fall back to the owners, which is why faxes can be sent out at 1:00-2:00 a.m., while the photocopier is making 50 copies of something we need the next day, sensitive documents are being shredded while I’m mostly maintaining my part of a chat online. I don’t know if Joe remembers that night or not - there have been too many, but that one I remember well. Big business allow us, if we will put in the neesary hours for superior quality the chance to have a very specialized niche in that particular industry or service sector. Also, by being specialized, employees with us are exposed to experiences and people they never would at even moderately large businesses. How many times do small companies have business associates visit from Switzerland to review the work in that office? Not often, for what we do.

Consequently, we’ve had different employees over the years who have changed their majors or career goals to pursue education in careers they may never have thought of earlier, as they can see the trends of where they can work in fields closely related to their original goal they wanted. But, their new job and training will probably have a relatively new job title, be defined by the current demands and will pay well.

Inside Observer, you always bring such good common sense to the discussions. Thanks for helping us review issues from perhaps a different perspective and what happened to a local business.

Finally, as I complete this, I do want to go back to Chiasm’s comment about the DD/MR gentleman who worked p/t. Like any other stuation, I believe it behooves us to gain furher information before passing judgment about anyone. While this person may desire to work many more hours, he (I think Chiasm said the employee was a male) medically may not be able to do so. Or, by working more and making more money, this employee may make himself ineligble for SSI. Each situation is different. However, what isn’t different is the work ethic the midly mentally retarded folks have. Delta Airlines learned that about 10 years ago, when they employed several of the stronger males to work with the luggage. With some supervision, this group of employees had less missed work days, didn’t B and M about work - rather they liked their work and wondered why they couldn’t go everyday, so I guess one would say they had a high job satisfaction. Furthermore, Delta did provide them with benefits so they were able to have their own health insurance and become productive members of society who paid their taxes along with everyone else.

Did it take a “big name” like Delta to give this group a chance to prove they could do their jobs? Probably. I don’t know if a small airline could take the risk quite the same if too many errors were made as the indstry experimented for the first time of hiring mildly retarded citizens for these jobs.

Big box stores also can improve the self esteem of a mildly mentally retarded employee able to work in their facility. No one ever said that person wanted to move up the corporate ladder, just be productive and around other people.

I’m not against requiring big businesses to pay a higher wage and beneit packages, if it could be done right, as others have mentioned here. One thing I think we all have to remember, is Pocatello residents gripe about their lack of air service, no Target, Gap, Old Navy stores etc. and yes, now the Olive Garden. If too many demands and pressures are put on the big boxes or other businesses in Idaho Falls, there is a community about 50 miles south whose residents not only want the goods and services immediately available to them, but they want even the part-time jobs as well. If you don’t believe me, read the Idaho monthly labor reports. Bannock County always has a higher unempoyment rate than Bonneville County.

Great subject - many different angles to consider - and I like the diferent views many have contributed. Thanks to all for sharing your ideas and wisdom, probably from experience or observation.

This week’s TIME magazine (page 51) discusses Chicago’s big-box minimum wage increase.

A map shows that that over half the states have mandated higher minum wages than the federal $5.15 (set in 1997). I think states raising the minimum wage is bad for smaller businesses, but the fact that over half of our states have raised the wage should signal Congress that they are overdue to raise the federal wage.

Forbes published a report on the best states to do business in; I’ll try to reconcile the best states to do business in against the TIME magazine map of states with higher minimum wages, and see what happens.

From the TIME article, I wanted to point out that Target store has announced they are postponing a previously announced store, so perhaps there is evidence of the big box wage backfiring on the city?

A labor expert at New York University Law School says that retailers “use the exit threat, then stay and expand”. Again, they do this because there’s money to be made.

I hear retailers threatening to pull out if big box minimum wages are increased, and I think of college students complaining they can’t afford school when tuition rises annually. It doesn’t happen.

It was noted that the Chicago Costco already meets the $10 minimum wage, they strategically pay it to be more competitive.

Finally, Santa Fe, NM mandated living wage increases since 2004 ($9.50 now, $10.50 in 2008), and the mayor says they were told “the sky was going to fall … but all we’ve seen is strong growth.”

The mayor further states that “more municipalities (are going to take) matters into their own hands. Poverty just isn’t a necessary ingredient for economic development.”

The article observes that Chicago’s action is prompting other cities like Boston and Washington to do the same.

So I ask again, should Idaho Falls try the big box minimum wage increase?

I doubt highly this is the case in this area. This is the result of poor managers not watching the time clock. This article states that Walmart claims employees took breaks but did not swipe their employee card stating so. Management should not let this happen at all and should be checking them on a regular basis.

By the way Joe, the two Walmart’s in the area have different pay for the same job.

Well, without knowing specific numbers and formulas, Walmart works on a standard pay scale. The pay for each level is set in Bentonville and depending on the cost of living, adjusted up or down according to zip code of the location. Zip Code. So, the pay levels were set for Ammon and when the second location was built, it was common knowledge the pay was about .25 more per hour. If an employee wanted to, he/she could transfer to the new location or just stay put. Like I said, it was common knowledge, and the reason for the difference was accepted and for the most part understood. Now I don’t know if the employees who were not around at the time of the new store opening know that. Walmart will evaluate the cost of living every year and adjust up if necessary.