"CHICAGO COUNCIL OKs LIVING WAGE"
What seems to have happened is that Chicago's city council, in all of its wisdom, decided to pass a law requiring employers beyond a certain size to pay $10/hr minimum wage and $3/hr in health benefits.
The purpose in this I presume is to provide the workers of Chicago a living wage.
So riddle me this, riddle me that aspiring and junior deputy economists, WHAT IS THE EFFECT THIS NEW LAW GOING TO HAVE ON CHICAGO'S LABOR MARKET???!!!?!!!?
One doesn't have to be a U of Chicago grad student to realize that companies will just not set up shop in the first place in Chicago, IRONICALLY HAVING THE REVERSE EFFECT OF WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE IDIOTS IN THE CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL!!!
Again, it seems the parasite has killed off its host and not realized it and in doing so has condemned itself. For while it may be grand that wages are now higher, unfortunately, this will deter companies and potential employers from conducting business in Chicago, and thus THERE WILL BE NO FREAKING JOBS, let alone ones that pay $10/hr. Furthermore, this will contribute to the divide between rich and poor in Chicago as now the only businesses that will set up shop are those that need specialized labor and would have to pay about $10/hr anyway, and thereby denied unskilled and presumably poor labor any employment prospects.
But what I get a kick out of the most is the response of those useful idiots who failed to understand this basic economic concept of the labor market. These morons who don't realize their jobs are gone. These idiots who think 0 jobs at $10 is better than 50,000 jobs at $7 or $8. What is their response?
Jubilation;
U of Chicago graduates, they are not.
6 comments:
You beat me to this; I was going to bring it to your attention, as it's EXACTLY what's wrong with the addle-brained approach to economics prevalent in our society today.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT THIS NEW LAW GOING TO HAVE ON CHICAGO'S LABOR MARKET???!!!?!!!?
It will ensure income equality by tending to keep wages at $6.50 an hour! Huzzah!
Heh.
The sub-headline says it all, really. Wal-Mart tends to follow the prosperity. If your community has a new Wal-Mart going up, rest assured that some economist working for the Big Box has forecast good tidings for your region. Conversely, forcing them out and protesting their existence usually forecasts a malaise or a downturn.
Honestly, basic microeconomics should be a JUNIOR HIGH or MIDDLE SCHOOL subject...try to get kids some exposure before they join a protest they know nothing about.
Over the last few years I've occasionally argued with friends that basic economic literacy should be made as an important part of high school education as reading, writing, or mathematics. They find my point of view, well, quaint.
But I think its a critical necessity: in a democracy where we regularly elect people to do our bidding, basic economic literacy would go a long way toward not electing fools (such as Chicago).
yeah... i've discussed this pile of crap with alot of people. Thos jobs are now leaving the city for the suburbs. Most of the people in the city won't be able to (for any # of reasons) commute to the suburbs to get the same $8 job they could've previously gotten in the city - and even if they could, they'd still be losing out in terms of commute & expenses.
Anyone who thinks this mandate is beneficial, or will provide more jobs at higher wages is either a moron, or a politician, or both. It is economically impossible, (c/p) to increase the wages and raise (or maintain) the level of employment.
Idiots.
I am deprerately hoping that at least one retailer will still build. Why? To display the Law of Unintended Consequences to a few select aldermen and city council parasites. I would love a nice big corporate retailer and come in a suck up all the area premium talent, forcing wage pressures on to core of area small business, ultimately resulting in 300 small business owners carping at some fool politicians for leaving them with crappy, useless working morons instead of the more-premium talent they used to get.
I would also like to hear all the politicians complain about the locally higher prices at "their" Target instead of cheaper suburban ones. What's the over/under on the # of days it would take at least one fine politician to mutter "rascism"? More than a week's a sucker bet. And an army of economists with full-color flip charts would never be able to make them understand the root cause.
Post a Comment