(updated below)

The Chicago City Council passed the big-box retailer ordinance by a vote of 35 to 14 on Wednesday, though it still might face a veto by Mayor Daley. I guess they just weren't listening to me.

I'm not against minimum wage laws — they certainly have their place, especially when the gap between rich and poor is growing as rapidly as it is. But as P. Pirx points out, singling out a single industry is neither fair nor economically wise, and may even be illegal under the Illinois Constitution.

When I find myself yelling at the radio on my way to work, that probably suggests something I should write about. The way the supporters of this law have gone about about passing it drives me nuts. They don't really know if it will keep large retailers away. And already, Wal-Mart is talking about ringing the city-limits with stores, rather than building in the city itself.

Why not work with Wal-Mart and other large retailers on a program that achieves higher wages while guaranteeing they'll still open new stores? In a world in which communities can be tricked into using hundreds of millions in tax dollars to build privately-owned stadiums, we should be able to exchange some tax breaks or other incentives for higher guaranteed wages.

One of the main defenses of this law is that the Chicago area is so desirable to retailers they will come here regardless of the increased wages. And this might be true. But I wouldn't discount Wal-Mart and its big buddies staying away just to send a message to other communities considering these kind of laws.

You might even call this "bullying tactics", as Alderman Joe Moore did. May be. But it's the poor neighborhoods which need these stores that will suffer. What does Moore care? He represents Rogers Park, a fairly nice neighborhood at the northernmost tip of Chicago. There is about as much chance of Wal-Mart opening a store in Rogers Park as a Moo & Oink opening on Michigan Avenue. Other boosters of the ordinance are similarly far removed from the action.

There is more than a little well-meaning racism here, and I'm not the only one who sees it:

"I've got these white liberals telling me what's good for my community. But this big-box thing will cost black people jobs," Ald. Ike Carothers (29th) told me during Wednesday's pontifications.

"If I put out a notice that there were 500 jobs waiting in my ward — what Wal-Mart was offering for each store — you'd see a line of people from my ward all the way to Mississippi. People want jobs. That's it."

Oh, these poor black people don't know what they're doing. Let's pass a law to help them, even if they don't approve. After all, we know better.

In the John Kass column quoted above, he suggests that the driving force behind this bill might be as simple as power struggles between a newly-weakened Daley and a City Council eager to buck him a bit. Call me crazy, but I'm a little suspicious of career politicians who are overly concerned with helping other people's constituents. And surprise surprise, organized labor wants to keep non-union jobs out of Chicago.

"At the heart of this ordinance is equality and fairness," Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon said in a statement. "Today's vote sends a message that our elected officials and community members alike are not interested in the creation of low-paying jobs that fail to provide a living wage or adequate health-care benefits for working families.

"The choice between no job and a low-paying job is a choice between bad and worse," Gannon said.

Is he serious? Why don't you ask some of the residents of Ald. Carothers' ward if they think low-paying jobs are worse than no jobs at all.

If the stores still move to Chicago and the law passes constitutional muster, that's great. Higher wages for the workers, tax money for the city, happy ending for everyone. But it's an awful big risk to take when you're gambling with other people's lives. Or rather, the lives of other people's constituents.


UPDATE:

Daley vetoes the ordinance. Sweet.