3 ms·

Why on earth should I be subsidizing that company, though? I agree that making sure that person, and people like them, should have the support needed to make s

• blfr 9y ago
  It's easy to flip this argument. You're not subsidizing that company. The company is subsidizing welfare. A person making at least some money requires less money in form of social transfers. In the end, is it better to subsidize that person's wages or have them become completely unemployable? This is not a leading question. Perhaps it would be better to just pay them to be a parent but it's not obvious to me.
  • zanny 9y ago
    Its not easy, because the company is not a charity. They are not giving away money at a loss to poor people to reduce welfare burden. They are hiring them for the purposes of making a profit. If they had to provide a full living wage to those on food stamps, they would either A. still be making a profit and eat the losses or B. stop making a profit and promptly fire them. There is no altruism here.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      blfr is arguing that it's what they're doing, not that it's their goal.
  • s73ver 9y ago
    No, I disagree. The company is getting away with paying less because of welfare. And I reject the false choice you presented. The company should be paying a living wage, plain and simple. If they can't, then they go out of business. One which is better run will take it's place.
    • blfr 9y ago
      And the government is getting away with providing less welfare because the company is paying. The company probably can pay more, the large ones always can, but then they would hire someone else. At a higher price point, a better employee will take their place.
      • s73ver 9y ago
        No. The government is still having to provide welfare because the company is shirking it's responsibilities. I'm sorry, but I will not accept the argument that it is ok for a company to have their employees on welfare. They are a for-profit entity. I should not be subsidizing them because they choose not to pay their employees enough.
        • BigJono 9y ago
          You're taking a very narrow view of the issue. There's no arbitrary obligation for a company to pay a "liveable wage", whatever that is. The whole minimum wage debate in the US is a shitshow. Both sides of the debate are equally idiotic. What matters is minimising the amount of welfare the government has to pay to keep people out of poverty. If the minimum wage is too low, then like you say, the government has to subsidise some companies that can afford to pay more but aren't, because there's a surplus of labor. If the minimum wage is too high, then people that would otherwise be employed become unemployed, and stop generating any wealth, which results in the government having to pay more welfare overall. This is a complex problem that needs to be solved using large amounts of data. Arguments like yours barely scratch the surface.
          • s73ver 9y ago
            "There's no arbitrary obligation for a company to pay a "liveable wage", whatever that is." And I disagree. I believe there is. At the very least, I believe that a company should not be relying on labor subsidized by welfare.
    • troupe 9y ago
• zanny 9y ago
  Because you spend a lot less on politicians than Walmart and friends do.