3 ms·

I have a different take on the article. Wal-Mart is merely an example that the author found relevant. You can substitute by any other alternative. The point th

by Fradow 9y ago

I have a different take on the article. Wal-Mart is merely an example that the author found relevant. You can substitute by any other alternative. The point the author wants to drive home is that the minimum wage is so low, workers can't provide for their family without supplementing it with food stamps. Because they have food stamps, Wal-Mart and alternatives keep the wages low. Food industry also profit from food stamp massively, so they have incentive to keep wages low so more workers need them and spend them here. This is a vicious circle, that doesn't help worker escape food insecurity.

metalliqaz 9y ago
I think one of the main issues here is assuming that jobs that pay minimum wage are (or should be) meant to support a family. There is all kinds of politics swirling around this issue, but one simple fact remains: a worker must create more value for their employer than it costs to compensate them. Just raising the minimum wage isn't going to help if the work isn't providing the necessary value. Sure, prices can rise to the consumers, but other market pressures will be at work to counteract such a rise (think automation, etc). I think it is much more important to try and train/educate workers such that they aren't dependent on minimum wage jobs for their livelihoods. Then those jobs can be what they are supposed to be: entry points to the workforce that allow workers to develop skills and move on.
civilian 9y ago
The author might have been using Wal-Mart as an example, but in general there's a trend in the American political left to shit on Wal-Mart because of the reasons given, and because they're a gigantic business. It gets kind of tinfoily-hat.
ams6110 9y ago
Minimum wage is not intended to be "support a family" wage, and it never was.
- david38 9y ago
  Yes it was. It was specifically designed for a man to support a family of four with a modest lifestyle.

by Fradow 9y ago

metalliqaz 9y ago

I think one of the main issues here is assuming that jobs that pay minimum wage are (or should be) meant to support a family. There is all kinds of politics swirling around this issue, but one simple fact remains: a worker must create more value for their employer than it costs to compensate them. Just raising the minimum wage isn't going to help if the work isn't providing the necessary value. Sure, prices can rise to the consumers, but other market pressures will be at work to counteract such a rise (think automation, etc). I think it is much more important to try and train/educate workers such that they aren't dependent on minimum wage jobs for their livelihoods. Then those jobs can be what they are supposed to be: entry points to the workforce that allow workers to develop skills and move on.

civilian 9y ago

The author might have been using Wal-Mart as an example, but in general there's a trend in the American political left to shit on Wal-Mart because of the reasons given, and because they're a gigantic business. It gets kind of tinfoily-hat.

ams6110 9y ago

Minimum wage is not intended to be "support a family" wage, and it never was.

david38 9y ago
Yes it was. It was specifically designed for a man to support a family of four with a modest lifestyle.