BIg-Box Rules

In response to my article in the Boston Globe on the proposed Chicago ordinance requiring big-box retailers to pay employees a living wage, blogger Daniel Drezner goes the ad hominem root and suggests that, before stating an opinion on the matter, I need to live on the south side of Chicago where the store would be going.  If I did, he says, then I'd see that the proposed Chicago ordinance is reckless.  But, of course, lots of people who have spent lots of time there -- and in places a lot like it -- seem to think the ordinance is sorely needed.  They realize that big-box retailers want access to lots of neighborhoods in the city, and not just the one Drezner highlights.  In fact, big-box is already in some upscale parts of Chicago.  So we know this much: people who know the neighborhood and the city in question quite well (and that includes Drezner) actually have VERY different views on the wisdom of this policy.   Which leads precisely to the point I was making.  I was not arguing that Chicago should pass the ordinance but rather that Chicago should have the legal power to make the policy judgment for itself.  Drezner, an economist, skipped right over that distinction. (If I need a fellowship to take me to the South Side, as he suggests, then maybe he needs one to take him to law school.)  Actually,  though, Drezner is on to something interesting and important.  He emphasizes rightly that not all city neighborhoods are the same. It might be that the city would be wise to permit bix box retail in some neighborhoods within the city on more favorable terms than others.  The mayor has suggested as much, proposing that each ward be able to decide the matter for itself.   It's a complex policy question, however, whether such neighborhood-based tailoring is a good idea or a bad one, and it depends a lot on the particularities of the retail market in the Chicago area.  I am skeptical it is a good idea, but open to being persuaded otherwise.  But, for me, the key point for now is that a city could not tailor its policy in this neighborhood-focused manner even it was a good idea for it to do so unless it had the legal power to enact such living wage ordinances at all.  And that's part of the reason why I think the Chicago ordinance, if enacted,  should be upheld against the home rule, equal protection,  and ERISA-preemption challenges that are sure to follow.

Comments

[Commenterlein]

I will politely refrain from commenting on the economic illiteracy displayed in your Globe article, but let me at least point out that Drezner's comment is not an ad hominem. You may want to look up what that expression means.

[Micah]

ad hom·i·nem (adj.) - Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.

Having looked up ad hominem, as Commenterlein suggests, I can only rationally conclude that it is time for Commenterlein repent for his stupidity. Before arrogantly suggesting that someone look up a word that one claims is being used innappropriately, it is wise to look up the word yourself. Drezner suggested that Barron was unqualified to have an opinion on the matter due to "personal considerations" rather than "logic or reason." Specifically, he said:

"It might behoove some foundation to create a fellowship for enthusiasts of urban reform to spend a year on the South Side in order to get a taste of what it's actually like to live in the inner city before pontificating about policy."

While not mentioning Barron specifically, it is clear from context that Drezner would apply this to him. And it is emphatically a "personal consideration" rather than "logic and reason."

So much for Commenterlein's arrogant remark.

[Commenterlein]

Micah,

Nice rant.

An argument is an ad hominem if it refers to personal characteristics that are irrelevant to the question at hand, e.g., "Micah's post to this blog is incorrect because he is not very good looking". An argument that invokes a personal characteristic that is relevant to the question is not an ad hominem - e.g., "Barron is unqualified to comment on this decision because he doesn't know the geographic location discussed.".

Thanks for asking.

[Martha Bridegam]

I suggested over there that as long as Mr. Drezner is handing out fellowships he ought to try living in Chicago on Wal-Mart wages for a year, but he didn't allow my comment to appear. Among other things I also suggested he consider the extremely high $17.33 "housing wage" for the Chicago MSA as computed in NLIHC's "Out of Reach" report for 2005. See http://www.nlihc.org/oor2005/ for details.

[blunsesermnug]

ORANJESTAD, Aruba - Felix rapidly strengthened into a dangerous Category 5 hurricane and churned through the Caribbean Sea on a path toward Central America, where forecasters said it could make landfall as “potentially catastrophic” storm.
Felix was packing winds of up to 165 mph as it headed west, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center. It was projected to skirt Honduras’ coastline on Tuesday before slamming into Belize on Wednesday.
“As it stands, we’re still thinking that it will be a potentially catastrophic system in the early portions of this week, Tuesday evening, possibly affecting Honduras and then toward the coast of Belize,” said Dave Roberts, a hurricane specialist at the center in Miami.

[pakistan]

Discover the beauty of pakistan. Learn the culture, heritage, traditions and landmarks of different parts of Pakistan especially sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan and N.W.F.P and far northern areas.

[pakistan]

Discover the beauty of pakistan. Learn the culture, heritage, traditions and landmarks of different parts of Pakistan especially sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan and N.W.F.P and far northern areas.