“Mayor Soul Man”
and “Mayor Big Business”
It’s just too perfectly awful. For the
first time in his seventeen years as the Mayor of Chicago, Richard M.
Daley has found it necessary to veto an ordinance by his normally
obedient City Council. The measure he has successfully moved to stamp
out was widely supported by rank and file citizens, community-based
organizations, and labor unions in his city’s black, Latino, and
working-class wards.
Originally passed by the council under
pressure from a remarkable grassroots campaign, the measure would have
required giant retail corporations like Wal-Mart, Target, Lowes, and
Home Depot to pay workers in the city a modest minimum wage of ten
dollars an hour by 2010. According to a poll conducted by Lake
Research Partners, 84 percent of the city’s residents and 90 percent
of its black residents supported the “big box” Living Wage bill.
The ordinance led Wal-Mart and Target to
announce that they were putting a number of “big box” retail
developments in Chicago on hold. They have launched a preemptive
capital strike, threatening to disinvest in the city unless and until
the popular ordinance was shelved and a “favorable business climate”
restored in the City of Big Shoulders.
In killing the minimally decent “big box” bill, Daley made a special
point of wrapping his action in the purported flag of racial justice.
He claims that his veto is necessary to permit the flowering of
economic vitality in the city’s abandoned black ghetto neighborhoods,
where jobs, banks, and mass retail shopping opportunities are
notoriously scarce. He defended his action at a South Side gathering
attended by a crowd of handpicked black supporters who cheered as he
accused the ordinance’s proponents of opposing “economic development”
in the city’s most disadvantaged communities.
This performance has earned him ironic praise from Chicago Tribune
columnist John Kass, who notes that “Mayor Daley is a brilliant
politician. Who else but Daley,” asks Kass, “facing his toughest
re-election fight from a credible black challenger, could play both
the race card and the free market card and get away with it? He was
Mayor Soul Man and Mayor Big Business on the same day.” (John Kass,
“Daley Shows He Still Holds All the Cards,” Chicago Tribune, 14
September, 2006)
“A Fight Wal-Mart Needed to Win”
Kass’s sense of irony is not shared by
the Tribune’s reactionary editorial board. The paper has applauded the
veto as a statement that “ Chicago is still open for business, that it
is hungry for development and job for its citizens.”
A “news” item in its business section last Thursday informs readers
that “it was a fight that Wal-Mart needed to win. Under pressure to
show continuous growth and stumbling in international markets,”
Tribune staff reporter Sandra Jones claims, “the world’s largest
retailer is attempting to win entry into cities like Chicago. Until
[Daley’s veto], it had little to show for its effort. With Mayor
Daley’s successful veto of a higher minimum wage ordinance for big-box
retailers, the way is paved for Wal-Mart’s expansion to the city.” As
Jones further explained, “Chicago is a critical testing ground for the
Arkansas-based discount chain as it attempts to expand from its rural
roots into the densely populated cities of the North.”
The Tribune did not elucidate on how having to pay a $10
minimum wage would necessarily prevent Wal-Mart from entering the
lucrative Chicago market. It did not give details on why pressure to
enter densely populated northern areas might not be an incentive to
work cooperatively with local populations and activists who have
reasonable concerns about the employment practices and economic,
social, and political impact of large-scale, low-wage corporate
retailing and the low-road model of corporate globalization that
Wal-Mart reflects and advances.
Like the city’s other corporate newspaper the Sun Times, the
Tribune has been describing the popular ordinance as a “bad idea”
that would create huge job losses for the city. The mere citizenry of
the city were fools, both papers believe, to support the
“anti-development” big-box bill.
Divide and Rule
Daley's decision to play the race card
(disingenuous for reasons I will discuss below) was straight out of
Wal-Mart’s three-year campaign to crack the Chicago market. Wal-Mart,
a notoriously labor-exploiting, and race-and gender-discriminating
template of low-road capitalism, has been trying for at least two
years to “crack” the rich Chicago market through what it sees as the
city’s weakest link -- the impoverished black inner city. The company
has been posing as a concerned corporate citizen motivated by a
benevolent passion to solve the problems of the forsaken ghetto.
The company and its allies in the Illinois Retail Merchants
Association have gone on black radio to trumpet this line. They have
pursued and won statements of support from captive black corporate and
City Hall toadies like Leon Finney (of The Woodlawn Organization) and
James Compton, the malingering millionaire ex-CEO of the Chicago Urban
League. They have recruited the president of the Chicagoland Chamber
of Commerce to trumpet Wal-Mart et al.’s recently discovered zeal for
“economic development in the city’s most underserved neighborhoods."
Half a Small Basic Family Budget is Just Too Much for “The World's
Largest Retailer”
It’s no stretch to say that the big-box bill is “modest” and
“minimally decent.” According to a rigorous study by the Economic
Policy Institute, the cost of a “basic family budget” -- the real
no-frills cost of living (taking into account housing, food, child
care, transportation, health care, and other necessities and taxes) --
for even a small family of one parent and two children in Chicago in
1999 was $35,307 (Jared Bernstein et al., Hardships in America
(Economic Policy Institute, 2001).
Think about what Daley and his corporate sponsors are saying about the
capacity of corporation capitalism to deliver the goods to working
people. The minimum wage that would have been set by the freshly
murdered ordinance would have required “the world’s largest retailer”
and friends to pay their lowest-paid workers no less than $20,000 four
years from now, when the minimum basic family budget for a mom and two
kids in the city will certainly -- particularly when you factor in the
ever rising disappearance of affordable housing in Daley’s ever more
gentrified, developer-friendly “global” metropolis -- cost more than
$40,000 a year The measure that Daley felt compelled to slay WOULD
HAVE SET THE FLOOR OF FULL-TIME WAL-MART WAGES AT HALF THE COST OF
BEING A POOR SINGLE MOTHER WITH TWO CHILDREN in the city.
Down the Memory Hole With “Democrat” Daley's Record of Ghetto
Neglect
The mayor’s racial rhetoric is rich with Orwellian irony. Who after
all has been running the metropolis during the last two decades
of ghetto abandonment that Daley now claims to loathe? A
longstanding champion of big white-run business, Daley’s
corporate-neoliberal reign of “pinstripe patronage” has more than
accidentally coincided with persistent and deepening black misery in
and around the city. Dominant local media’s mainly laudatory appraisal
of the Mayor over the years (recently tempered by a series of classic
Chicago hiring and corruption scandals) has consistently ignored the
steep racial oppression and inequity experienced by hundreds of
thousands of black Chicagoans living on the outskirts and in the
shadows of Daley’s “beautified,” “vibrant,” and expensive downtown
business, commercial, and residential district and its growing ring of
glittering condominium and entertainment complexes. Endemic deep
poverty across the city’s vast stretch of highly segregated and
conspicuously non-beautified black neighborhoods has never struck the
city’s wealthy or their deep pockets mayor as a “big ticket” item
requiring concentrated private or public investment.
The $475 million that Daley got the city’s rich and powerful to spend
on the city’s spectacular new Millennium Park would have been more
than welcome in those communities. It would be especially appreciated
in the form(s) of job training and/or child welfare and/or after
school programs and/or “green space” expansion and/or drug treatment
and/or … fill in the blank. The list of unmet neighborhood
requirements goes on and on. It includes a crying need for affordable
housing in the face of the mayor’s dedication to the gentrification of
centrally located neighborhoods that are cleared and reserved for
affluent urban professionals deemed vital for the city’s cherished
ascendancy to “global” status.
Respectable local and national commentary on “the city that works”
routinely ignores the curious fact that social and economic inequality
has deepened between Chicago’s black and white neighborhoods since
Daley II’s ascendancy in 1989. That rising inequality has been fed by
the mayor’s corporate, downtown-centered and globalist “growth
machine,” which has pushed many of the city’s numerous black poor
further and further to the urban and suburban margins of the new
global metropolis and funneled the lion’s share of economic
development funding to richer and whiter parts of town that need it
least.
"He Talked to Middle America"
Chicagoans who paid attention got a taste of the depth and degree of
Daley’s disdain for the city’s many black poor when he joined his
“good friend” George W. Bush on an imperial helicopter flight that
passed over some of the city’s ghetto communities on the way to
address the rich, corporate, and extremely white “Chicago Economic
Club” at the Sheritan Chicago Hotel and Towers in January of 2003.
The purpose of Bush’s visit was to sell his call for the elimination
of taxes on American corporate dividends -- a measure that was
designed to “cost the government $300 billion over ten years” and
“create much bigger budget deficits for the future. More than half the
benefit of eliminating dividend taxes,” the New York Times
reported at the time, “would flow to the wealthiest 5 percent of
taxpayers.” Bush also used his trip to Chicago to call for the
acceleration of preexisting steep income tax cuts and the repeal of
the estate tax, which meaningfully affects only a tiny and
super-privileged and very disproportionately white segment of the
population.
Bush accused those who opposed his profoundly regressive tax
“stimulus” plan of engaging in “class warfare.” Yet his package was
designed to increase the already formidable accumulation of private
wealth in disproportionately white zones of hyper affluence like
Chicago’s North Side Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, and suburban Lake
Forest while further bankrupting already inadequate social programs
serving devastated black Chicago neighborhoods like North Lawndale and
Grand Boulevard, where corporate stock ownership and high incomes
were too rare for many residents to applaud the plutocratic
president’s tirade against the “double taxation” of corporate
dividends.
After soaring over West Side ghetto communities in a thunderous
phalanx of armored military helicopters with the president on the way
from O’Hare to the Sheritan Chicago and listening to the president’s
disgraceful “middle-class tax-cut” pitch, the “Democratic” Mayor told
reporters that Bush “hit a home run in that he talked to middle
America. I don’t think it was good versus evil,” Daley said, or
“‘rich versus poor.’”
Daley’s concept of “middle America” left out much of his own city,
including fifteen predominantly nonwhite community areas, very
disproportionately black, where more than a quarter of the children
were living at less than half the poverty level in 1999.
Corporate Deletions and Blackmail
In Tribune and Sun Times editorials applauding the
mayor’s gallant action to “save jobs,” there is no mention of the
University of Illinois at Chicago ’s Center for Urban Economic
Development’s determination that Wal-Mart will displace more
merchandising jobs than it creates in the city. There is no mention
of the money that will be sucked out of the metropolis by large
corporate chains that do not invest or save primarily in Chicago.
There is no mention of Wal-Mart’s long record of violating civil
rights, labor, and equal opportunity employment laws or of the large
number of Wal-Mart “team members” (workers) compelled to supplement
inadequate wages and benefit packages with reliance on public
assistance. There is nothing about the terrible impact of its global
purchasing practices on U.S. manufacturing employment or about the
millions of public dollars that Wal-Mart and other large retailers
extort from local and state government in the form of subsidies and
tax breaks.
There’s nothing about the company’s record of refusing to hire
ex-offenders -- a major concern in a city where at least 40 percent of
black male adults carry the crippling mark of a criminal record.
There’s nothing about the humble and (for employers) eminently
affordable level of the wage and benefit levels the big box ordinance
would have mandated for large retailers’ lowest-paid employees.
Like the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and the craven corporate
Chicago Urban League, the papers’ editors simply repeat as
self-evident truth the big low-road retailers’ insistence that they
simply can’t afford to pay entry-level workers wages equal to half the
cost of a small family’s basic budget. They ignore the NYU Brennan
Center for Justice’s judgment that Wal-Mart’s pressing need to enter
new urban markets would have compelled it to work within the minimally
decent wage standards set by the law. They doctrinally refuse to
acknowledge that the big-box ordinance proponents are not
anti-development but advocate a positive, alternative, and “high-road”
pattern of metropolitan development that seeks to move wages closer to
the real cost of living for ordinary working people.
Welcome to the world of metropolitan neoliberal racism, where the
regressive workings of the supposed “free market” -- really the
machinations of the market and state’s creature and master The
Corporation -- are falsely sold as the solution of capitalism’s most
truly disadvantaged inner city victims and where filthy-rich,
limousine-riding “civil rights” leaders play ball with the objectively
racist Mayor in handing the keys to the city to ruthless and
concentrated economic power.
Paul Street was the Director of
Research at the Chicago Urban League between 2000 and 2005. He is the
author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11
(Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004), Segregated Schools: Educational
Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York, NY: Routledge,
2005), and Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, and Policy in
Chicago (Chicago, 2005) Street will deliver the Pierre de Vise
“Future of Chicago” Lecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago
(Burnham Hall, room 309) on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 between 12
and 1250 P.M. Street’s next book Racial Oppression in the Global
Metropolis: A Living Black Chicago History is forthcoming next
year.