Anarcho-capitalism

PORTLAND, OR

by Mike Bryson
—

I don’t live in Chicago, but because of A.B. Dada’s previous article¹ I was interested in watching the hilarity of a powerful City Council and a powerful Mayor battling against each other while huge corporations sit by the sidelines chuckling. The City Council of the City of Chicago passed a Big Box Ordinance a few weeks ago with a 14-1 vote. The Big Box Ordinance would force Big Box stores to pay a minimum of US$13 per hour in wages and benefits to even the most entry level employees. Immediately Target canceled 2 stores they were planning in the City, with many suburbs more than happy to let them open without the wage minimums. Mayor Daley came out immediately to fight against the ordinance, but his veto (the first in 17 years if he did so) would need 3 or 4 councilmen on his side to prevent an override.

Now we see Wal-Mart and Lowe’s, a home improvement store, also cancel new stores in the City of Chicago.² I am shocked that the councilmen would want to push these huge income (and tax!) generators out of the city, so I considered the reasons why they would try to pass such a ridiculous law. While I was on the phone with A.B. Dada yesterday, it hit me; it isn’t about power over the citizens, it is likely about business power.

Mayor Daley is a huge and powerful Mayor, with many sources of campaign income. He may receive huge contributions from the Big Box companies (possibly, I have no actual data on this) versus contributions from individuals. He likely does not make any major profits from companies within the city as it would be seen as a conflict of interest, and why should he worry about running small businesses when he can raise millions by calling the ones he already is supported by?

That is NOT true of the City Councilmen, though. Many of them have been alledgely involved in local businesses that reap big profits for them. They each cover a district in Chicago, so they have 93% less voters than Daley does, and significantly less power. For these Councilmen, Big Box competitors could drive their huge profits in the toilet. I’ve visited Chicago only 3 times, but my most recent visit a few weeks back I had gone with A.B. to the South Side to see the mess that is made down there. Prices in the tiny stores are outrageous, but competition is diminished because zoning is very hard to get. The North Side is a completely different story; stores are everywhere and prices are competitive.

Almost all the Big Box stores opening in Chicago are doing so on the South Side where they can do very well. With a poorer class of people, it is likely that the Big Box stores will be a huge opportunity for consumers, workers and even smaller stores as the local consumers won’t have to drive to the burbs (or take a 1 hour bus ride each way) to get what they want; visiting local stores along the way. Yet those who actually own (openly or secretly) the small “convenience stores” would be put out of business quick considering their racket of jacking up prices because no one can open a competing store nearby.

While I have no facts to back this up, and I am not from Chicago, it makes more sense to me than what the papers are saying. The Mayor wants the campaign income from the Big Box stores so he is against the ordinance; the councilmen want the income from the possible shill stores that they possibly own.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.

—
Mike Bryson is the news editor of the Global Unanimocracy Network. He lives in the Portland, OR region where he works as an IT business developer and point of sale consultant. E-mail Mike with news links or comments on this report.