CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:13:06 -0000

If you believe in freedom and choice, then you should support market competition to keep your prices low. If you believe that you are somehow smarter than your neighbors and believe you should be empowered to prevent others from having freedoms and choices, then you would be opposed to Wal-Mart.

Re: Question of the day

espoir, chicago, IL — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:03:31 -0000

Walmart is bad for the economy. It is a proven fact that they drive out small businesses. Small businesses are the heart of our economy and are the country's largest employer. If we want to help rebuild our communities, we need more small businesses. Look at all of the empty storefronts already. That will only get worse if Walmart comes to town.

Re: Question of the day

state employee — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:37:05 -0000

NO
Anti-union, anti-environmental company has no place in Chicago.

Re: Question of the day

ok Ramsin — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:03:21 -0000

Clearly Ramsin has been studying the documentary "High Cost o Low Prices." News flash-- that was filmed years ago and fact is Walmart has proved itself as a good corporate citizen with its store on the west side.

"Bad company that harms markets it moves into?" Tell that to Alderman Emma Mitts, whose ward has thrived with new businesses since it opened a Walmart in 2006. 400+ permanent jobs and hundreds of construction jobs. And access to fresh food & Produce.

Re: Question of the day

Ramsin — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:05:58 -0000

My head is going to explode. It's not just the jobs. Wal-Mart is bad development, they are bad for consumers and producers, they leech off of taxpayers, and they thrive, literally off of bad economic conditions.

Their prices aren't even considerably cheaper on average. They build giant hulks they then abandon. They make it impossible for independent business to survive or begin. And they use their clout to fight things like FDA regulations that keep people safe. It's a bad company that harms markets it moves into.

The idea that people need to accept it because of some free market property rights argument is ridiculous. If you believe in zoning laws, you accept the fact that the state has the right to legislate who can move where. Read your local zoning ordinance some time, and see how often the phrase "health, safety, and general welfare" pops along with "injurious to use and enjoyment."

Re: Question of the day

Bobs yer — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:30:10 -0000

No offense, I just find the question itself incredibly funny. "Approve"? Eddie Burke, son of Eddie Burke, approve?

Chicago really is a little 3d world country. Throw Burke some $$, and he'll approve. Some extra for his wife's next campaign, he'll really approve.

won't get caught, don't worry. This town ain't ready for reform. State neither. (Approve? funny.)

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:03:47 -0000

I don't have a dog in the fight

Re: Question of the day

profiles in courage — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:46:37 -0000

Absolutely. The City Council is the group that is playing politics - not WalMart. City codes allowing for businesses should be applied evenly.

How would they feel about a ban on companies owned by homosexuals or a ban on Republican-owned stores? This is a case of economic discrimination which is sad because the jobs pay an average of $12 per hour with some benefits.

1 in 10 Illinoisans is out of a job. I am sure the would love the opportunity to work.

Re: Question of the day

Ron Burgundy — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:31:10 -0000

Yes. Let the public vote with the job applications and their wallets as to whether they want Wal-Mart in Chicago. The unions are free to try to organize the workers all they want, but they should fight their own battles instead of having beholden politicians doing their bidding. The free market and the rights of workers to choose to organize, or not, on their own works elsewhere, why not in Chicago?

Full disclosure -- years ago over summers in college I worked for Sam's (owned by Wal-Mart). Compared to other jobs available for summer employment for college students, I was paid well and treated well, even without a union.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:26:45 -0000

Yes. That's true. But the comment was about union hiring.

Re: Question of the day

Coach — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:20:36 -0000

Rich,

It's been awhile since this issue has surfaced publicly in a big way, but historically there has been much discussion about the limited representation - or no representation - of blacks among certain trade unions.

A few years ago at the Capitol, there was quite the dust up when Emil decided that he was going to try and use some legislation to force the trade unions to step up minority participation in apprenticeship programs.

If memory serves me, I think his push to mandate better minority participation was unsuccessful. I think you may have written a column or two about that whole ordeal.

Re: Question of the day

i'm4jobs — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:33:48 -0000

There are lots of good reasons why Wal-Mart should be allowed to build in the City and lots of excuses about why they should not. Chairman Burke cut to the chase by proclaiming that Chicago is a union town, and the City Council is afraid to cross them. Public opinion about Wal-Mart has turned and Brookins' ordinance will pass when put to a vote. But Burke, Mell, et al will stall it as long a possible to appease their labor friends.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:54:48 -0000

Unions refuse to hire minorities?

Re: Question of the day

What the Heck — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:53:30 -0000

Rich,
the real question here is why are unions who refuse to hire minorities standing in the way of people in an area that needs jobs for youth and young adults. Tell you what if the unions will hire 400-500 young adults/youth then they can talk but until they make a commitment to this community they should not stand in the way of jobs!

Re: Question of the day

Labor diva — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:52:56 -0000

Q: â€œIf the Food4Less & jewel were getting the job done, then why did walmart sell 4 days worth of produce from a typical supercenter in 3 hours?â€

I will give you another answer...

A: Walmart Farmers Market last saturday: $1/tomatoes, 50 cent oranges and free watermelons on your way to check out along with you free walmart recyclable bag and free entertainment by Cliff on WVON... that's the way Walmart does business. A whole lotta hoopla but nothing to show for it. Try again fellas!

Re: Question of the day

Quinn T. Sential — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:20:19 -0000

What about a commitment to the rights of working men and women in Chicago to organize; as customers, rather than employees?

What if the greater number of citizens that are not represented by organized labor, could care less about those that want to be, and would simply rather buy better more affordable products from someone willing to stock them and sell them to them?

What laws have been initiated or passed to protect their rights not to have to overpay for goods that are otherwise conveniently available elsewhere, just because the regulators want the lady working the cash register to make $15 per hour?

Who represents the people that have to overpay for goods or be inconveniencesd by traveling over the city border to get them, and taking their sales tax dollars to the suburbs instead?

Re: Question of the day

MrJM — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:59:57 -0000

Q: "If the Food4Less & jewel were getting the job done, then why did walmart sell 4 days worth of produce from a typical supercenter in 3 hours?"

A: Predatory pricing -- the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market. If competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The predatory merchant then has fewer competitors or is even a de facto monopoly, and can then raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear.

-- MrJM

Re: Question of the day

Ghost — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:30:50 -0000

whats is fascinating is that wal-mart got its start by building stores where other companies thought the market was too small to justify putting in a business. Turns out the wal-mart strategy worked.

A department store or grocery store should be able to expand where they wish fincanally. let the consumer vote for where they want to shop, not the government or the variouse people who never spoke up once about yet another starbucks being constructed....

Re: Question of the day

Belle — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:02:53 -0000

Yes of course they should be free to open as many stores in Chicago as they want. The unions and government should not be allowed to require private, non-unionized businesses, to do anything.

Re: Question of the day

Fan of the Game — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:38:27 -0000

The answer is Yes.

People keep saying that the company should have to conform to the community's values. If the community values are opposed to Wal-Mart, then the retail giant won't last long in that community. Folks will spend their money at stores that promote their values, and that particular Wal-Mart will become a money pit.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of capitalism, if everyone is playing under the same rules, capitalism provides a very accurate measure of what people value.

Re: Question of the day

Captain Flume — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:29:36 -0000

Wal-Mart is successful because a lot of people shop there. The Democratic Party in Illinois is successful because a lot of people vote for its candidates. You (and I) may not like the power and influence that either wields, or some of the policies that either carries out, but neither would have those if so many people did not give it to them.

Re: Question of the day

Dudeman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:25:26 -0000

No! I think we should have government run supermarkets! Walmart is bad. The state would make a level playing field for the average citizen to get thier groceries the way they want them. (Note Heavy Sarcasm)

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:24:26 -0000

Did anyone in Illinois politics ever take an Econ 101 course?

Maybe at a Big Ten school like Penza State ?

http://www.mit.edu/people/c...

Seriously, I would accept the argument that W-M should accept the mores and customs of the community if they were uniformly enforced across the industry within city limits. When specific companies are targeted, I smell a rat. I also acknowledge the argument that W-M gets a lot of infrastructure benefits from TIF districts and enterprise zones, but so could any other similar company with a similar development in such a zone.
People can always vote with their feet. If a business does not cater to the needs of a community, people can and will shop and be employed elsewhere. I guess thatâ€™s why the W-M in Evergreen Park got 25,000 job applicants (mostly from within Chicago city limits) and is one of the areaâ€™s top generating stores.

Re: Question of the day

UIS Student — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:16:41 -0000

I am a student at UIS and have worked for Best Buy, Circuit City, and now for Wal-Mart. I am part time working around 20 hours a week. I make more at Walmart (by almost $2.00 more) than I did at either of the other two retail stores I worked at (for doing relativly the same job), I get a higher wage on sunday and holidays (something I never got with the other two)plus I get health insurance that isnt all that bad. So I say if Walmart wants to open a chicago store let them. I dont hear unions complainign about Best Buy, K-Mart, Target, or orther retail stores when they open so why should Wal-Mart be any different. I wish some of the critics who say walmart offers low wages and no benefits would actually look into what company offers.

Re: Question of the day

Yes — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:15:22 -0000

Last I checked it is a free country. People just want to bash Wal-Mart because they're on top of the world when it comes to sales. Kinda like people like to bash sports teams or players who win all the time. That's the best analogy I can give. The place sells stuff for cheap - I shop there quite frequntly despite the fact that I don't fit the stereotypical Wal-Mart shopper. If they meet all the legal requirements, let them open a store.