3 ms·

>But heh, fuck social safety nets ya know? If they existed, both Walmart and Uber would have to pay real wages. Safety nets do exist, that's why Uber and Wal-M

>But heh, fuck social safety nets ya know? If they existed, both Walmart and Uber would have to pay real wages. Safety nets do exist, that's why Uber and Wal-Mart don't have to pay real wages. The tax payers subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonalds for $153b a year [0]. We ought to account for the government benefits required by employees of large corporations and tack that on to their yearly bill -- no deductions -- and see what that does to their wages. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/we-are-spending-153-billion-a-year-to-subsidize-mcdonalds-and-walmarts-low-wage-workers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/...

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> We ought to account for the government benefits required by employees of large corporations and tack that on to their yearly bill -- no deductions -- and see what that does to their wages. Agree 100%. You either bill them directly, or you create a basic income, raise taxes to support it, thereby forcing companies to pay more to bring labor into the labor force.
twoodfin 11y ago
Why does the safety net subsidize Walmart but not Costco, which hires far fewer employees per $ of revenue? Walmart is paying their low income workers something. Costco, where many of those workers would probably love to work instead, is paying them $0.
- intopieces 11y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your question or agree with its premise. The subsidy comes in the form the government benefits (WIC, SNAP, ACA, etc) that would otherwise be covered by an employer out of the revenue they generate from sales. Whether the safety net subsidizes Costco or not I can't say, as I don't have the data around how many Costco employees use these benefits from the government. Basically, the low prices you see at Wal Mart couldn't exist if the company paid their workers a wage that reflected the benefits given by the government. Additionally, Wal-Mart receives a significant amount of money in the form of the SNAP payments themselves from their customers. It's basically like the government food store, except the family that runs has a net worth of more than $100B. I don't understand your second sentence. Costco has employees that they pay $0?

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> We ought to account for the government benefits required by employees of large corporations and tack that on to their yearly bill -- no deductions -- and see what that does to their wages. Agree 100%. You either bill them directly, or you create a basic income, raise taxes to support it, thereby forcing companies to pay more to bring labor into the labor force.

twoodfin 11y ago

Why does the safety net subsidize Walmart but not Costco, which hires far fewer employees per $ of revenue? Walmart is paying their low income workers something. Costco, where many of those workers would probably love to work instead, is paying them $0.

intopieces 11y ago
I'm not sure I understand your question or agree with its premise. The subsidy comes in the form the government benefits (WIC, SNAP, ACA, etc) that would otherwise be covered by an employer out of the revenue they generate from sales. Whether the safety net subsidizes Costco or not I can't say, as I don't have the data around how many Costco employees use these benefits from the government. Basically, the low prices you see at Wal Mart couldn't exist if the company paid their workers a wage that reflected the benefits given by the government. Additionally, Wal-Mart receives a significant amount of money in the form of the SNAP payments themselves from their customers. It's basically like the government food store, except the family that runs has a net worth of more than $100B. I don't understand your second sentence. Costco has employees that they pay $0?