Supporters of Chicago’s big-box ordinance turned to San Francisco and Santa Fe on Thursday to make a case that forcing big retailers here to pay higher wages won’t cost anything at all. A City Council hearing to extol the benefits of the proposed Chicago law came as support appeared to grow for a likely–and welcome–veto by Mayor Richard Daley.
Chicago’s ordinance would require the largest retailers to pay a minimum wage that would reach $13 an hour in salary and benefits by 2010.
Supporters likened that to San Francisco’s law, which requires that all employers pay at least $8.82 an hour. (Companies that do business with the city must pay at least $10.75 an hour.) Santa Fe has a $9.50-an-hour minimum for companies that have more than 25 employees. Companies can earn credits that reduce the required wage by offering health care or child care.
Think those other ordinances don’t have an adverse impact?
The mayor of Santa Fe said his city’s living-wage law has had little impact on job growth or the city’s economy. He didn’t mention, however, that in the last six months, the Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy and Toys “R” Us have closed their stores there. Nor did he mention a New Mexico Department of Labor report that shows job creation in Santa Fe is at a four-year low and lagging behind the rest of the state.
Santa Fe does have some big-box stores–a couple of Wal-Marts, a Target and a Lowe’s, among others. But Santa Fe is in a far different competitive situation than Chicago and its many, heavily populated suburbs. The next closest locations for the large Santa Fe retailers are 25 to 50 miles away. Retailers have far fewer options in the Santa Fe area. Heck, the entire metropolitan area of Santa Fe has only a few more people than Naperville.
San Francisco and its neighboring towns are in a more competitive situation, closer to Chicago’s. But there are no Wal-Marts, no Targets and no Lowe’s in San Francisco. Maybe San Franciscans like it that way. But the fact is nobody looking for work can find it at those retailers in San Francisco.
Chicago is specifically targeting the largest retailers, which would put them at a competitive disadvantage to other stores. The strongest argument against the Chicago ordinance is that retailers have choices. They can skip Chicago and locate in Evergreen Park, Morton Grove, Tinley Park or any other suburb. They can take their jobs, their sales-tax revenues and their low prices to the suburbs–right across the street from the city’s border.
Daley appears to be carefully gaining the support he needs to bury this job-crushing ordinance, and that’s a relief.
