City of Big Shoulders?

Not any longer. Nowadays it seems more like the City of Big Brother.

You may or may not have been following the recent news out of Chicago, but Chicago's City Council has, in its infinite wisdom, decided just how much SOME businesses should pay their employees:

Defying Mayor Daley and challenging Wal-Mart and Target to follow through on their threats, a bitterly divided City Council voted Wednesday to require Chicago's big-box retailers to pay employees a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.

Okay, that sounds good and decent. Recently there's been a lot of talk about "living wage" ordinances and such, so this didn't strike me as that unusual -- at first. Then I started looking a little more closely and I started getting madder and madder.

First, I found this story written a couple of days before the Council vote. My first problem -- the ordinance is written to apply only to stores "with at least 90,000 square feet of space operated by retailers with $1 billion in sales." In other words, they're not even being sneaky about the fact that Chicago is specifically targetting Wal-Mart and Target (and probably a few others). If this is a "basic human decency" issue, as the Council implies, why limit this just to Wal-Mart and Target? I know very small businesses are sometimes exempt from some of the more onerous regulations, but how can they justify this? I mean besides, "These are two successful companies and we wish they'd behave the way we want. I know, let's MAKE them behave the way we want." It's been a while since I've had civics or business law, but I don't seem to recall that being a duty of elected officials. [Didn't Marlyand have a problem with the constitutionality of a recent "Wal-Mart specific" bill?] Here's my favorite bit:

"Wal-Mart and Target could pay their people a living wage. Then we wouldn't have this problem, and people could actually live on the money they made," Hairston [5th district] said.

Well yes, Ms. Hairston, Wal-Mart and Target could pay their workers more, but when did it become your job to determine equilibrium wages in the labor market. Do you not think there'll be a (negative) employment effect of such a law? Oh, the Council has already thought of that and they've decided Wal-Mart and Target are bluffing:

Hairston called it [Target's announcement that it was putting a planned new store on hold] little more than a scare tactic. And even if the threat turns out to be real, she's standing firm in support of organized labor.

Oh, did I mention:

Ald. Howard Brookins (21st) is still searching for a big-box retailer to replace the Wal-Mart his colleagues nixed at 83rd and Stewart.

If I recall correctly, this was the store that Wal-Mart finally decided to open just outside the city limits. What happened? Well they allegedly had 25,000 applicants for about 350 jobs and Evergreen Park expects $1 million this year in sales and property taxes. Yep, good thing the Council kept Wal-Mart from exploiting those Chicagoans -- pity the poor Evergreen Parkers.

Well that was enough to get me riled up a bit, but then I saw that Chicago's been doing a lot of this stuff of late:
Smoking, of course, has been outlawed in (virtually) all public places.
There's a proposal under consideration that would dictate what kind of cooking oil fast food restaurants can use.
They've criminalized talking on a cell phone while driving.
There are strict limits on the decibel level of street musicians.
Finally, in April, they outlawed the sale of foie gras because of the geese-cruelty concerns.

Looking back at that list, I'd be happier in a world with those behavior modifications (other than the fast food restriction -- I love McDonald's fries). Problem is, I don't think the City Council has any business at all dictating most of those behaviors. Okay, you could sell me on the smoking one as a legitimate case of a negative externality. Y'all know how I feel about cell phones, but an effective prohibition (not just a "hands free" rule) would be almost impossible to enforce. The foie gras one really takes the cake, though.

Think about it. A group of 59 Council members decides that 2.9 million people in the city of Chicago shall not be allowed to buy this product because they (the 59) find it cruel to geese! I agree it is cruel and I wouldn't choose to buy the product, but how do these 59 people justify imposing their values on 2.9 million people?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous and it looks as if there might be a bit of blowback from this:

Whatever it is, more than a few people around the city want it to stop.

"I'm a big boy," said Kerry Dunaway as he munched on fried chicken downtown recently. "I can take care of myself."

Given the level of voter apathy and the incumbency advantage, though, I don't see it changing. Yet another reason I'm glad I'm not a Cubs fan.