4 ms·

Food stamps are not intended as a subsidy for private industry to take advantage of so they can underpay their workers. Yet a casual observation of these congl

Food stamps are not intended as a subsidy for private industry to take advantage of so they can underpay their workers. Yet a casual observation of these conglomerates actions and policies clearly shows this is their strategy.

lovich 8y ago
At some retail stores the management actually provides guidance to people on how to sign up for various forms of welfare. Was given the instructions myself when working at walmart
pasbesoin 8y ago
"Corporate welfare" is a real thing. Something to keep in mind, the next time -- and every time -- a politician or partisan goes on about the "travesty" of (personal) welfare from an "economic" perspective. And, this "corporate welfare" takes on many and many overlapping forms. For example, many children in this country (the U.S.) have health insurance, health care, and dental care through Medicaid and government programs. A lot of their parents are working. Personally, I don't begrudge this -- not to those children -- in the least. Good health is the foundation of a good life. That also means a productive life that contributes to our shared society. But, those jobs aren't paying those parents what it takes to support their families. Something that is arguably necessary for those people to be able to continue to work them. (And many of those parents, themselves, do not have health care coverage. Which, among many other things, also keeps them more vulnerable as a population.) It's getting hard for me to avoid using Amazon for some things. Local stores no longer carry them. And it sure is convenient (well, price/marketing manipulation and increasingly rough and unreliable shipping aside). But it feels like we are being funneled into an increasingly inescapable form of this social abuse, at the same time.
- deusofnull 8y ago
  Agreed it certainly does feel like we are on the highway to some kind of neo-feudalism. My words, not yours, of course. It does frustrate me to no end when these Free Market right-libertarians hark on about personal responsibility and demonize welfare. Like, do they realize the amount of public funding, safety nets, government contracts, and subsidies the private "free" market relies on? Then they have the audacity to call out poor folks asking to be able to go to the doctor, or reliably eat 3 meals a day every day. The cogitative dissonance is real as hell.
thrill 8y ago
So, the conclusion can be that the elimination of food stamps for anyone capable of working would elevate their, and so by definition, the average of everyone's, wages?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bena 8y ago
It feels more complicated though. Let's say I have only enough work for 8 hours a week. Should I hire someone for 40 just to give them "full employment"? What benefit do I get from that? Or let's say I only have enough capital to pay for 8 hours a week. Should I run myself out of business hiring and paying someone for 40 just because it's "nice"? Also, we have to get into the actual value of the work provided. What is the value of the job performed? That's an incredibly complicated function and I don't really know the answer to it. And then you do have people who are abusing their power to pay less than they should. Companies who lean on their employees being able to qualify for welfare even with a full 40 hours. I think that at the very least, a full-time, 40 hour a week job should be able to enable someone to acquire room and board for themselves.
- deusofnull 8y ago
  If you only need 8 hours of work from a worker, then find someone looking only for part time work. They're out there. The problem is there are millions of people working 40 hours a week or more , sometimes at multiple jobs, who still can't afford to guarantee they and their families eat 3 healthy meals a day or go to the doctor. Look at the increase in worker productivity since the 70s and then look at the lethargic growth in worker compensation. Those two variables should be tightly coupled.
  - bena 8y ago
    I did say that a 40 hour a week job should be able to provide you with a basic existence, did I not? Of course, there is going to be some disagreement as to what "a basic existence" entails. But that's a discussion for another time. I think that if you work a full 40 hours in a week, you should be above the poverty line. That minimum wage should be tied to that at the very least. I don't think it currently is. And if I need full time work, but the only jobs available are 3 part time jobs at 10 hours each, I'm sorry, but my need doesn't really transform them into better jobs. I'll take what I can get.

lovich 8y ago

At some retail stores the management actually provides guidance to people on how to sign up for various forms of welfare. Was given the instructions myself when working at walmart

pasbesoin 8y ago

"Corporate welfare" is a real thing. Something to keep in mind, the next time -- and every time -- a politician or partisan goes on about the "travesty" of (personal) welfare from an "economic" perspective. And, this "corporate welfare" takes on many and many overlapping forms. For example, many children in this country (the U.S.) have health insurance, health care, and dental care through Medicaid and government programs. A lot of their parents are working. Personally, I don't begrudge this -- not to those children -- in the least. Good health is the foundation of a good life. That also means a productive life that contributes to our shared society. But, those jobs aren't paying those parents what it takes to support their families. Something that is arguably necessary for those people to be able to continue to work them. (And many of those parents, themselves, do not have health care coverage. Which, among many other things, also keeps them more vulnerable as a population.) It's getting hard for me to avoid using Amazon for some things. Local stores no longer carry them. And it sure is convenient (well, price/marketing manipulation and increasingly rough and unreliable shipping aside). But it feels like we are being funneled into an increasingly inescapable form of this social abuse, at the same time.

deusofnull 8y ago
Agreed it certainly does feel like we are on the highway to some kind of neo-feudalism. My words, not yours, of course. It does frustrate me to no end when these Free Market right-libertarians hark on about personal responsibility and demonize welfare. Like, do they realize the amount of public funding, safety nets, government contracts, and subsidies the private "free" market relies on? Then they have the audacity to call out poor folks asking to be able to go to the doctor, or reliably eat 3 meals a day every day. The cogitative dissonance is real as hell.

thrill 8y ago

So, the conclusion can be that the elimination of food stamps for anyone capable of working would elevate their, and so by definition, the average of everyone's, wages?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bena 8y ago

It feels more complicated though. Let's say I have only enough work for 8 hours a week. Should I hire someone for 40 just to give them "full employment"? What benefit do I get from that? Or let's say I only have enough capital to pay for 8 hours a week. Should I run myself out of business hiring and paying someone for 40 just because it's "nice"? Also, we have to get into the actual value of the work provided. What is the value of the job performed? That's an incredibly complicated function and I don't really know the answer to it. And then you do have people who are abusing their power to pay less than they should. Companies who lean on their employees being able to qualify for welfare even with a full 40 hours. I think that at the very least, a full-time, 40 hour a week job should be able to enable someone to acquire room and board for themselves.

deusofnull 8y ago
If you only need 8 hours of work from a worker, then find someone looking only for part time work. They're out there. The problem is there are millions of people working 40 hours a week or more , sometimes at multiple jobs, who still can't afford to guarantee they and their families eat 3 healthy meals a day or go to the doctor. Look at the increase in worker productivity since the 70s and then look at the lethargic growth in worker compensation. Those two variables should be tightly coupled.
- bena 8y ago
  I did say that a 40 hour a week job should be able to provide you with a basic existence, did I not? Of course, there is going to be some disagreement as to what "a basic existence" entails. But that's a discussion for another time. I think that if you work a full 40 hours in a week, you should be above the poverty line. That minimum wage should be tied to that at the very least. I don't think it currently is. And if I need full time work, but the only jobs available are 3 part time jobs at 10 hours each, I'm sorry, but my need doesn't really transform them into better jobs. I'll take what I can get.