Big Box Store Size
Final post for now.
With all of the hullabaloo over Chicago's big box ordinance (summary: living wage if your store is over 90,000 square feet and you gross over $1B annually; all companies potentially affected are pissed) I've been wondering just how big 90,000 square feet is - it's hard to visualize. Here are some references.
- The average Target is 126,000 square feet. SuperTarget is 174,000.
- The average Wal-Mart is 101,000 square feet. Super Centers are 185,000.
- The average Lowe's is 116,000 square feet. (Note that this source is a little dated, and Lowe's was trying a "small store" format of 94,000 square feet.)
- The average Home Depot is 130,000 square feet.
Thus, 90,000 would be smaller. But I've maintained that the retailers should just build smaller stores (89,999 square feet, anyone? ... although, of course, that wouldn't exempt them from the ordinance. But still.)
Comments
Or they could, oh, I don't know...pay a living wage no matter how big the store is?
They tried to do something along these lines (only geared toward health coverage, not a living wage) in Maryland and it didn't pass muster on even the lowest court level. Of course the MD law applied to WalMart and WalMart only, but targetting only specific types of companies (big boxers) is probably going to get a similar treatment when this gets litigated, and it will.
I think it's shortsighted, as well. If you're going to mandate a "living wage" it seems ridiculous to exempt companies based on the gaping loophole that is physical premises size. If a deli worker at SuperTarget deserves a living wage, so does a file clerk at a Prudential branch office and the cashier at the small, locally owned and operated grocery store. The fact that they're going specifically after one segment of the retail sector with this law says, to me at least, that this isn't about improving the quality of life for any worker, it's about scoring cheap political points by going after a common and easy target of derision.