Fischkoepfin

My dot is near Gerhard Schroeder. I think I am gonna have to rethink everything

Yeah, my dot is near him as well. I know nothing about the guy.

Schroeder is the German ex-chancellor and supposedly a Social Democrat. But like his colleague, Tony Blair, he stands for the third way of Social democracy, which basically means he is only a social democrat in name but in reality a free-market capitalist with nationalist and neoliberal leanings. If you see how close both of these are to GWB, you'll understand that it can't be that bad.

Alright, according to the more accurate test:

Economic Left/Right: -8.5

Social Libertarian Authoritarian: -8.32

That sounds much more accurate, and the only person close to me is the Dalai Lama.

Hmmmm........

now to make my day complete - if erekose would take this and be placed as a conservative

Centrist

Same here. But then the questions are too general to really get to someone's political opinion, especially since they only care about personal and economic issues (in a very vague manner). The test Steven and Jinky posted is much more definitive. I'll let you know the result once I'm done.

Not too sure what the discussion is except that the cartoons seem to suggest that the Hezbollah is using civilians as shields and thus the killing of civilians in Lebanon is nothing but collateral damage whereas the killing of civilians in Israel is calculated murder.

Personally I think that cartoons like that are trying to excuse the inexcusable. Blaming Hizbollah for the Lebanese casualties overlooks the fact that Israel is specifically targeting civilians (and has been for a while) under the pretense of bombing terrorist fortresses. Whenever you lob a missile into a neighborhood of a major city, your main objective will be to kill civilians regardless of professions of the opposite. The same is of course true for Hizbollah even though they are less covert about it.

The main difference is of course that Hisbollah is doing what is best for them. As past bombings aiming at civilians have shown, the winner is usually the side that wants to create or reenforce the perception of the other side as the deadly enemy. Just take a look at WW2. The allied bombing of Germany was started with the explicit goal of killing civilians in order to weaken morale among soldiers at the front. However, it achieved the opposite because rather than convincing German soldiers that they were fighting a war in which there was nothing to win, they now had a new cause - to revenge the death of their families. The ironic thing is that the allies could have known about the effect of civilian casualties on troop morale - after all the German bombing of England enhanced English morale rather than breaking English spirits.

To come back to Israel's bombing of Lebanon, the only thing that will be achieved - thanks to civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure - is a strengthening of Hisbollah (itself a child of another invasion by Israel) and other extremist forces.

I don't feel sorry for the germans.

Why would you? That wasn't my point. However, the allied bombings in WW2 were ordered with the goal of breaking morale and achieved the opposite. Same will happen in Lebanon (actually is happening right at this second). You might not care but most people who lost their homes will feel the need to act.

I don't want to wait until 2010000000 :cry:

Yeah, I'm with you.

I was looking forward to bratwurst 10 for 1 Euro. Damn you Germany!!!!

Try Aldi or Lidl, instead. It's them that Walmart can't beat when it comes to prices.

when is the next game ?

I want world cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup :cry:

Aeh, 2010. But qualifications start sooner. And there's the Euro-Cup and other continental cups in the meantime.

But I agree: I WANT MORE WORLDCUP NOW!!!

it gives people comfort in hard times, but I would never suggest it's the end-all-be-all.

I just quoted that because I wanna talk about it. Yes it gives people comfort, and sometimes that's more than what's expected

end-all-be-all, no I agree with you, people shouldn't quit going to hospitals or treating themselves because they believe in God or a major power or whatever...

As obviously you're a man of science, answer me this: Is there need an answer for everything, or can we feel good about ourselves otherwise just by believeing in something (or someoene)????

As a woman of science (which I am only to certain degree, well of science, not the woman part ), I think that humans tend to look for answers for everything. Religion is just as much a search for answers to the questions of human existence than scientific inquiries into the nature of human existence. Of course, we can feel good about believing in something or someone, but it doesn't quell our urges to find answers. For the most part, the answers provided by science as to who we are and what we are have been beneficial to us. And without trying to be repetive, there is no reason to believe that it isn't possible to believe in the importance of scientific inquiry and believe in a higher being/cause at the same time. Actually, I think that most scientists are not atheists....

Just a thought, might help, CHURCH!

While religion can offer a lot of support in times of need, it doesn't help if someone has a mental illness nor does it cure mental illnesses which are oftentimes due to a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Of course feeling more secure and part of a support community (which many churches are) can alleviate symptoms because there's a chance it triggers or inhibits the release of certain chemicals in the brain but it is probably not more effective than going to the gym with a good friend or joining a soccer team (or other community-oriented sports club).

So, I'd take the suggestion with a grain of salt. Church is not a cure.

I'm not saying church or religion or whatever is the cure, but it's always an option. Sometimes people feel lost, sometimes is not a mental illness, no chemical imbalance, but just the act of going to a church, even if you don't believe in God, or ... it can help. Why take lithium, hundreds of pills when you can ''treat'' yourself. Do you know what I mean? Have you ever tried?

i'm not catholic, I am not even sure there is a God, but I at least try to find myself, to find a better way to live my life through the church.

Just a thought

Yup, I know what you mean, and I think your advice is not a bad one, but it is potentially dangerous. I know lots of people who would advocate church as an alternative to therapy and that is dangerous. If you continually feel down or are freaked out by certain things regularly, then it's time for thearpy.

I completely agree with you. But still, even we're in 2006, some people don't believe in science, they like to believe there is something bigger, something treatable, do you know what I mean? What if you have cancer or you're hiv positive and don't believe in God? What other option? you know?

People who don't "believe" in science have obviously missed that science has nothing to do with belief because it is based on experimental evidence and logical deduction. To see science in opposition to religion is an extreme point of view that discounts that both can go hand in hand and have been for the longest time.

Anyway, I don't think that it is necessary to believe in God even if you have a major illness. I guess there are other ways to deal with it because otherwise every really sick person would be a convert to faith. Not that I don't see the benefit of religion in people's life and that it gives people comfort in hard times, but I would never suggest it's the end-all-be-all.

Just a thought, might help, CHURCH!

While religion can offer a lot of support in times of need, it doesn't help if someone has a mental illness nor does it cure mental illnesses which are oftentimes due to a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Of course feeling more secure and part of a support community (which many churches are) can alleviate symptoms because there's a chance it triggers or inhibits the release of certain chemicals in the brain but it is probably not more effective than going to the gym with a good friend or joining a soccer team (or other community-oriented sports club).

So, I'd take the suggestion with a grain of salt. Church is not a cure.

I'm not saying church or religion or whatever is the cure, but it's always an option. Sometimes people feel lost, sometimes is not a mental illness, no chemical imbalance, but just the act of going to a church, even if you don't believe in God, or ... it can help. Why take lithium, hundreds of pills when you can ''treat'' yourself. Do you know what I mean? Have you ever tried?

i'm not catholic, I am not even sure there is a God, but I at least try to find myself, to find a better way to live my life through the church.

Just a thought

Yup, I know what you mean, and I think your advice is not a bad one, but it is potentially dangerous. I know lots of people who would advocate church as an alternative to therapy and that is dangerous. If you continually feel down or are freaked out by certain things regularly, then it's time for therapy.

Have I ever tried? Sure I have; churches offer great support systems but as I said if feeling depressed and anxious on a daily basis, it's not the way to go.

You Are 48% Evil

You are evil, but you haven't yet mastered the dark side.

Fear not though - you are on your way to world domination.

How Evil Are You?

http://www.blogthings.com/howevilareyouquiz/

As long as they still have stores in Maryland I couldn't careless that they sold their stores in Germany. Their loss not mine. Will be heading there tomorrow to reap the bargins. LOL

The American Economy is suffering due to the anti-competitive conduct of Wal-Mart

How is this? If Wal-Mart wasn't around it would just be someone else selling the stuff and probably for a higher price. Can't see where Wal-Mart is anti-competitive. I think if you look up competitive in the dictionary it will say "See Wal-Mart."

Walmart's style of competition would be like an NFL team where all the players are juiced, the refs have been paid off, and field lines have been jerimandered. Walmart is the antithesis of true competition.

Great analogy! You just forgot to include the fans into the equation because they have been brainwashed to believe that their team is the best in any respect!

Thanks for starting this thread, btw. I love movies, especially foreign and independent movies.

Stuff I recently watched and can recommend (American or British movies):

NBT - Never been thawed (Mocumentary about frozen food collectors, very funny)

Thumbsucker (hilarious, about a high schooler who tries to overcome his thumb-sucking)

The Whale and the Squid (somewhat sobby drama about children going through their parents divorce, but well-made movie)

Matchpoint (latest Woody Allen, set in England about a guy who is in love with two women. Surprising take at the subject with an even more surprising end)

Transamerica (about a transsexual women who goes on a road-trip with her son)

Ladies in Lavender (about two English sister who save a foreigner from drowning during WW2)

Junebug (about a recently married women who is suddenly confronted with her Southern inlaws, funny and sad, but well done)

Everything is illuminated (funny movie about the journey of a young American to Ukraine trying to find out about his families roots. The Ukrainian guide is mind-blowingly funny...)

Foreign movies:

The Edukators (German movie about a group of young people who break into people's houses to make a point about consumer culture until they suddenly meet one of the owners and kidnap him. Weird movie but well done, sometimes funny and suspenseful)

Good-Bye Lenin (German movie about a young man who decides to keep his mother, who has awaken from a coma, from finding out that the wall came down. Funny in parts and interesting historically)

Winter Sleepers (German movie about revenge (among other things)).

The Princess and the Warrior (Another German movie, about a woman who is saved by a small-time crook and consequently becomes involved in his life. Somewhat fantastic and surreal, but good).

Cote d'Azur (French romantic comedy at its best. Funny and sexy and lots of confusion)

Monsieur Ibrahim (French movie about a Jewish boy who moves in with his Muslim neighbor. Funny, but only to a certain degree. Stars Omar Sharif)

Look at me (French movie about young woman who grows up in the shadow of her dad, a famous writer, and her attempts to garner some attention for something else than being her dad's daughter. Interesting and well-made)

Distant (Turkish movie about solitude or rather isolation. Focuses on a photographer who is visited by his country-cousin. Beautiful images).

Cuckoo (Finish movie set in Lappland during WW2)

I enjoy watching a lot of foreign films. This movie is one of the scariest movies I've seen in long time.

Directed by Guillermo Del Toro

During the last days of the Spanish Civil War, Twelve-year old Carlos is abruptly dropped off at the Santa Lucia School for safekeeping. The school, which is more of a compound, houses orphans of The Republican Militia soldiers killed during the war. Once Carlos settles in, he immediately makes some friends, as well as some enemies. As the days pass, Carlos learns there is far more going on here than the schooling of orphaned boys.

If you're perusing your local video store or belong to Netflix, I'd highly recommend this one.

Great movie!

hate to break this to you....but old news

this just in - and related to some of this

Wal-Mart quits Germany

story

I saw the refenrence in the other threat. But this truly deserved it's own threat. The "unbeatables" have been beaten! They can't get a foothold in the world's third largest retail market. That's huge! Viva Germany!

Right on, ET!

I can't help but wonder how Walmart couldn't compete in Germany if they're really that cheap. After all, Germans are very parsimonious and buy mostly at discounters. Makes me think that Walmart is not really that cheap or that their quality was sub par...

Jeez, an anti-german-thread, are you THAT ready?

you're a brave brave man

Huh?

Just a thought, might help, CHURCH!

While religion can offer a lot of support in times of need, it doesn't help if someone has a mental illness nor does it cure mental illnesses which are oftentimes due to a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Of course feeling more secure and part of a support community (which many churches are) can alleviate symptoms because there's a chance it triggers or inhibits the release of certain chemicals in the brain but it is probably not more effective than going to the gym with a good friend or joining a soccer team (or other community-oriented sports club).

So, I'd take the suggestion with a grain of salt. Church is not a cure.

Not too sure what the discussion is except that the cartoons seem to suggest that the Hezbollah is using civilians as shields and thus the killing of civilians in Lebanon is nothing but collateral damage whereas the killing of civilians in Israel is calculated murder.

Personally I think that cartoons like that are trying to excuse the inexcusable. Blaming Hizbollah for the Lebanese casualties overlooks the fact that Israel is specifically targeting civilians (and has been for a while) under the pretense of bombing terrorist fortresses. Whenever you lob a missile into a neighborhood of a major city, your main objective will be to kill civilians regardless of professions of the opposite. The same is of course true for Hizbollah even though they are less covert about it.

The main difference is of course that Hisbollah is doing what is best for them. As past bombings aiming at civilians have shown, the winner is usually the side that wants to create or reenforce the perception of the other side as the deadly enemy. Just take a look at WW2. The allied bombing of Germany was started with the explicit goal of killing civilians in order to weaken morale among soldiers at the front. However, it achieved the opposite because rather than convincing German soldiers that they were fighting a war in which there was nothing to win, they now had a new cause - to revenge the death of their families. The ironic thing is that the allies could have known about the effect of civilian casualties on troop morale - after all the German bombing of England enhanced English morale rather than breaking English spirits.

To come back to Israel's bombing of Lebanon, the only thing that will be achieved - thanks to civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure - is a strengthening of Hisbollah (itself a child of another invasion by Israel) and other extremist forces.

I don't buy the argument that shopping at Walmart is cheaper. I don't shop there and still have lower living expenses than my friends that do. There are ways to get around Walmart...

The problem is more that it's difficult "to kick a habit." If you're used to Walmart, you'll assume that you go there because it's cheaper and more convenient. But if you stopped shopping there you would realize that it's all some marketing ploy making you believe that Walmart is your best choice just as people were made to believe that smoking was good for your health.

Absolutely untrue....wal mart IS cheaper...I think most here would agree regardless how you fall on this issue.

The question is, however, how many of these people have actually tried to get along without shopping at Walmart for a while. I've done both (yes, I used to be an avid Walmart shopper) until one day I stopped. Now, shopping is a quicker affair, I don't pay more than before but less, and I don't have to feel like I'm consuming at the expense of other people. It takes some strategic planning because in order to save money without Walmart, shopping needs to be done at several stores. But once you know where to go, it's not that difficult anymore.

No, the question was...is walmart cheaper?, and the answer is yes.

If you don't want to shop there, that's fine...but to say it's not cheaper is incorrect. Now can a family live off the same shopping budget by 'getting along' without certain things? Sure...but that's not the statement you originally posed. It theoretically could be 'cheaper' because the family in question cannot stretch a buck further elsewhere so they have to go without some stuff...but per item prices are cheaper. And if a family is on a limited income, they shouldn't have to 'do without' if they can afford 'luxuries' at wal-mart if they so chose..

Ok, so you're saying I'm wrong, even though I and several people I know have made the actual experience that life without Walmart is not more expensive and in certain case even cheaper. "Getting along," most likely used not quite correctly by me, did not mean to imply that people can't buy what they want, but that you can live well without suffering a negative impact on your standard of living. I never suggested that people who don't shop at WM couldn't buy certain things, no idea how you got that.

And I'm certainly not affluent nor can I afford to buy "luxuries," be it at Walmart or anywhere else. If you're truly worried about stretching the buck as far a s possible, then it is irrelevant if luxury items are slightly cheaper at Walmart because you can't drop any cash on non-essentials. My premise that Walmart is not cheaper is based on normal shopping that you need to do to survive and keep your underpaying job, like buy groceries and clothes or in better months, CDs or DVDs.

I don't buy the argument that shopping at Walmart is cheaper. I don't shop there and still have lower living expenses than my friends that do. There are ways to get around Walmart...

The problem is more that it's difficult "to kick a habit." If you're used to Walmart, you'll assume that you go there because it's cheaper and more convenient. But if you stopped shopping there you would realize that it's all some marketing ploy making you believe that Walmart is your best choice just as people were made to believe that smoking was good for your health.

Absolutely untrue....wal mart IS cheaper...I think most here would agree regardless how you fall on this issue.

The question is, however, how many of these people have actually tried to get along without shopping at Walmart for a while. I've done both (yes, I used to be an avid Walmart shopper) until one day I stopped. Now, shopping is a quicker affair, I don't pay more than before but less, and I don't have to feel like I'm consuming at the expense of other people. It takes some strategic planning because in order to save money without Walmart, shopping needs to be done at several stores. But once you know where to go, it's not that difficult anymore.

I don't buy the argument that shopping at Walmart is cheaper. I don't shop there and still have lower living expenses than my friends that do. There are ways to get around Walmart...

The problem is more that it's difficult "to kick a habit." If you're used to Walmart, you'll assume that you go there because it's cheaper and more convenient. But if you stopped shopping there you would realize that it's all some marketing ploy making you believe that Walmart is your best choice just as people were made to believe that smoking was good for your health.

The decline at Ford came after the point when they started cutting wages and moving production abroad. They abandoned Henry Ford's model in order to increase corporate profits....

Huh? Cutting wages? When was that? I have family members that work for Ford and let me tell you, they are set for LIFE. They make a crapload of money (and of course, they're unionized).

Wages in production have decreased (if adjusted for inflation) since the early 1980s when automakers and unions agreed that less benefits and lower wages would be the only way to keep the jobs in America. In the mid-1980s, a two-tier wage system was introduced at most automakers still producing in the US, under which new employees would be excluded from wage provisions of older employers. Today's autoworkers make significantly less money then 20 or 30 years ago.

If your family members have not experienced any of this then that's awesome, but it doesn't negate the fact that overall wages in automotive production have decreased. As to them being set for life, let's just hope Ford doesn't declare bamkrupcy because then they'll experience what those working in steel or the airline industry have learned a while back: the pension fund is the first to disappear.

It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Yeah, and look where Ford (the company) is now.

The decline at Ford came after the point when they started cutting wages and moving production abroad. They abandoned Henry Ford's model in order to increase corporate profits....

that's a very "liberal" way of thinking. you better watch it before they start calling you a communist pig and call for your deportation.

Well, let them try!

Wow, I'm gone for an hour and discussion is raging. Awesome!

I'd like to add a few comments about the impact of living wages. First, if a person has to work only one job instead of three, there will be additional job openings for those that could possibly lose their jobs.

Second, people who earn more money are also willling to spend more which is good for the economy and will drive up profits to the degree where manufacturers and retailers will offset the extra money spend on wages and possible make more than before. The problem with wages being depressed and people needing to work several jobs to get by is that they are less likely to go out and buy. If you look at the people who have been the most active consumers, it's usually not those who make minimum wage. It's an old law of American capitalism first realized by Henry Ford, who decided to pay his workers $5/day so that they could afford to buy his cars. As we all know, Ford became one of the richest men in America that way.

Third, if employers pay decent wages, employees are happier with their jobs. Happy employees tend to stay at their jobs and to work harder. Less turnover in a work place leads to less money spent on training new employees and cuts longterm costs for employers. Furthermore, happier employees are attracting more customers.

As to prices, they will most likely rise, but they have been rising for the last few years anyway, with price inflation exceeding income gains. This means that people under the current minimum wage are buying less. A substantial wage raise, unlike those cosmetic raise in NC or SC, will offset price raise and inflation. Right now the minimum wage, when adjusted to inflation, is lower than ever before.

July 27, 2006

Green Cards Would Mean Fingerprinting at Airports

By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, July 26 — The nation’s estimated 12 million legal permanent residents would be subject to fingerprinting every time they re-entered the United States, under a plan the Homeland Security Department intends to announce Thursday.

The new security checks would be used at all international airports, seaports and land borders. Even before the proposal was officially announced, it drew strong opposition from some immigrant advocates who said it would send the wrong signal to people who were legally trying to become citizens.

The new security checks would expand a program called US-Visit that now covers most foreign visitors to the United States from countries except Canada and Mexico.

Since January 2004, 61 million people have been fingerprinted and digitally photographed to confirm that the visas they hold are valid and to check whether visitors have criminal records or are terrorism suspects.

The proposal to expand the program comes at a time when the Homeland Security Department has integrated computer systems operated by its Citizenship and Immigration Services unit, which maintains records including fingerprints on all legal permanent residents.

Anna Hinken, a US-Visit spokeswoman, said that requiring legal permanent residents to undergo such a check would make it possible to intercept people who were using a stolen or fraudulent legal permanent resident card, or green card, to enter the United States illegally.

It will also comply with a legal requirement that the Homeland Security Department use biometrics to confirm the validity of government-issued travel documents at the border, she said.

“This will make people safer,” Ms. Hinken said, “because no one can steal their permanent resident card and pretend to be them.”

The new review system, which would not be put into effect for several months, would affect an estimated one million people a year, Ms. Hinken said; that represents the approximate number of times that legal permanent residents re-enter the United States after having traveled abroad.

But some immigrant advocates said the plan was reminiscent of the effort, started after the 2001 terrorist attacks, to require Middle Eastern and South Asian men on temporary visas in the United States to register with federal authorities.

“The security measures required to become legal permanent residents in the first place are sufficient to guarantee our homeland security,” said Shirley Lin, a spokeswoman for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York. “This is an unnecessary measure that sends a wrong signal to those expressing their desire to become a full part of United States society.”

The announcement on Thursday will involve just a proposed rule, meaning there will be a 30-day comment period before the changes could become final, Ms. Hinken said.

Besides extending the requirements to legal permanent residents, officials want to start doing the reviews for some Canadian visitors, Ms. Hinken said.

The proposed system would not affect most Canadians who visit the United States as tourists or Mexicans entering the United States with a government-issued border crossing card. The requirement would just apply to some Canadians entering the United States with work visas.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Link

Having been a long-time supporter of the living-wage campaign, I was thrilled to read this article this morning. Let's hope other cities will follow; people shouldn't need to work 3 jobs to support their families.

July 27, 2006

Chicago Orders ‘Big Box’ Stores to Raise Wage

By ERIK ECKHOLM

After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring “big box” stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits.

The ordinance, imposing the requirement on stores that occupy more than 90,000 square feet and are part of companies grossing more than $1 billion annually, would be the first in the country to single out large retailers for wage rules.

A gallery packed with supporters of the bill broke into cheers as the measure passed, by a vote of 35 to 14, after four hours of intense speeches and debate.

“This is a great day for the working men and women of Chicago,” said Alderman Joseph A. Moore, the measure’s chief sponsor. Mr. Moore said he had had inquiries about the ordinance from officials in several other cities.

An Illinois retailers’ group said it would challenge the measure in court, and Mayor Richard M. Daley, who opposed the measure, has not said whether he will veto it.

Wal-Mart’s response to the Council’s action was swift and blunt.

“It’s sad — this puts politics ahead of working men and women,” John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “It means that Chicago is closed to business.”

Wal-Mart will still open its nearly completed branch on Chicago’s West Side in September — the company’s first store in the city — but any future plans “will likely change,” Mr. Simley said.

In arguing that Wal-Mart and other companies can easily afford to meet the new standards, proponents of the measure pointed to Costco, which says it already pays at least $10 an hour plus benefits to starting workers around the country.

In existing stores in the Chicago area, Wal-Mart pays entry-level wages of about $7.25 an hour but its average pay is $11 an hour, a company spokesman told The Chicago Tribune. The company has not revealed details of its benefits.

With this ordinance, Chicago has opened a contentious front in the growing national movement, led by labor and poverty groups, to raise the incomes of bottom-rung workers through local minimum wage and “living wage” legislation. Some economists say such measures will stifle development and deprive consumers of access to cheap goods, but many poverty experts say that local efforts elsewhere to raise wages have not choked off growth and that the expanding, low-paying retail sector can be safely pressed to raise pay.

“We’re very confident that retailers want and need to be in Chicago, and the question for the city is what kinds of jobs they will bring,” said Annette Bernhardt of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, which helped draft the Chicago bill and has done economic studies of its likely impact.

The Illinois Retail Merchants Association condemned the measure as likely to hamper job creation and a form of illegal discrimination, and said it would challenge it in court.

Mayor Daley said earlier that the ordinance could impede growth and tax revenues. He did not say yesterday whether he would veto it, but he would have to persuade two aldermen to switch their votes to avoid an override.

Some politicians and residents in neighborhoods where new Wal-Mart, Target or Home Depot stores are planned also spoke out against the measure, fearing a loss of jobs, and leaders of black churches dueled over the benefits and risks.

The bill was the object of a fierce lobbying battle over recent months, with unions and community groups flooding aldermen with petitions, post cards and telephone calls and retailers doing the same.

In a meeting with several black aldermen, Target officials warned that passage of the measure could cause the company to cancel or delay three stores planned for the city’s South Side, the aldermen told reporters.

Yet the proposal had strong appeal, especially in the city’s lower-income black and Hispanic wards.

“The working people were overwhelmingly in favor of this law, and this was conveyed to the aldermen,” said Madeline Talbott, chief organizer for Acorn, a community group that campaigned for the bill.

Alderman George Cardenas, who voted for the ordinance, said: “We had to make a stand. This is good for people and good for the country.”

The bill comes at a time when many large retailers are increasing their presence in large cities.

The drive to raise state and city minimum wages has grown out of frustration with Congress, which has left the federal minimum wage at $5.15 an hour since 1997. At least 22 states have enacted somewhat higher minimum wage laws.

San Francisco; Albuquerque; Santa Fe, N.M.; and Washington have across-the-board minimum wage ordinances for all but the smallest businesses. Those in San Francisco and Santa Fe have set levels near that in the Chicago bill without driving out retailers, Ms. Bernhardt said.

Ms. Bernhardt said large retailers had saturated suburban markets and had powerful incentives to move into urban areas.

Under the bill, minimum wages in the covered stores would rise to $9.25 in 2007 and to $10 in 2010, and be indexed to inflation after that. Benefits would have to total $1.50 an hour in 2007 and $3 in 2010.

Smaller retailers would remain subject to the state minimum wage of $6.50 an hour.

A legal brief prepared recently for the Illinois Retail Merchants Association said the bill would violate equal protection guarantees in the Constitution, but a legal analysis by the Brennan Center at New York University said there was ample precedent for selective imposition of minimum wages by size of business.

The bill would affect 35 stores already in Chicago, including branches of Kmart, Target, Toys “R” Us and stores like Sears and Lowes. Support for the idea started taking off two years ago when Wal-Mart said it would open its first store in the city in 2006, in the poor Austin ward on the West Side.

Shia Kapos contributed reporting from Chicago for this article.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

link