4 ms·

I'm not sure why people blame Wal-Mart if their employees take food stamps. This is really the fault of poorly-written policy. It blows my mind why people blame

I'm not sure why people blame Wal-Mart if their employees take food stamps. This is really the fault of poorly-written policy. It blows my mind why people blame Wal-Mart and not the folks who developed the legislation of those policies. That aside, I'm sorry but you're just wrong about this. The data is pretty unequivocal: larger firms have more scope for investments in process, technology, and tools that lets them operate more efficiently. In the example of Wal-Mart, they run an ultra-efficient supply chain that minimizes breakage, makes sure popular goods are available for purchase, etc. Whereas half the time when I go into a non-chain grocery, they're out of, or otherwise not stocking the thing I want, they're closed, the item isn't in the right place on the shelf, it's hidden in the "back room", a supplier is late, or there's some other problem. Sure, some of this is due to bargaining power, but Wal-Mart also operates at a scale where they can afford to invest billions in sophisticated merchandising systems. As software people, we should understand what a difference this stuff makes to business. Small firms pay worse because they simply don't make as much, given the same level of sales, as large firms do. The argument is a complete strawman. Lower, less-efficient firms don't have the gross profits (price - cost of goods sold) to be able to afford higher wages, even if they wanted to.

telchar 8y ago
The problem is that Wal-Mart doesn't pay a living wage. Are you suggesting instead that the problem is that it's possible for people earning below a living wage to get public assistance?
will_brown 8y ago
>It blows my mind why people blame Wal-Mart and not the folks who developed the legislation of those policies. Because Wal-Mart has the profits to be able to afford to pay full time workers a living wage, but instead of paying a living wage to all full time employees they scoop the profits, and shift that gap to taxpayers. I think most people agree, that if an employer has the profits to pay full time employees enough so they employees are not eligible for food stamps the employer has that obligation. Where the profits exist, businesses should be required to reimburse the government/tax payers for at least the cost of food stamps. Why should tax payers subsidize the food for employees, and their families, of public companies when the profits exist? The worst part is Wal-Mart publicly claims they can’t afford to pay their employees a living wage to the extent they won’t be eligible for food stamps...well it’s simple math walmart profits less the total amount of benefits the employees take...wow the money is there.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  > I think most people agree, that if an employer has the profits to pay full time employees enough so they employees are not eligible for food stamps the employer has that obligation. I'm not so sure that most people agree. (For example, I do not.) It seems that if most people agreed, we might be closer to a world where it was policy or law (another form of conditional minimum wage, perhaps).
  - eldavido 8y ago
    Thank you, this is exactly my point. I don't buy the concept of "living wage" but that's not even what's at issue. I just think it's folly to blame Wal-Mart employees for availing themselves of a legally available social benefit program. I don't care where a person is politically. The private sector's job is profit maximization, not social welfare. There's this growing school of thought in the US that thinks it's the private sector's duty to "Take care of people". I'm not sure how we got it into our head that that should be the responsibility of private businesses. We have a government for that. It seems absolutely bonkers to start messing with the fundamental machinery of corporate law if the goal is social welfare. It's like seeing the thermostat is broken in the house, so we take a wrench to the engine of the car. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >There's this growing school of thought in the US that thinks it's the private sector's duty to "Take care of people". It would seem to me the growing school of thought is it’s the taxpayers duty to “take care of corporations”. It’s not the taxpayers job to buy Wal-Mart employees and their families food. How can you conclude that an employer paying its employees enough so the don’t qualify for food stamps is “social welfare”? Food stamps in and of themselves are social welfare, the fact the employees qualify become corporate welfare.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      And I also don't care where a person is politically; the private sector's obligation is to not leave their employees on public assistance. The government, and by extension you and I are not there to subsidize Wal-Mart. "I'm not sure how we got it into our head that that should be the responsibility of private businesses." Well, why do you believe that it's our duty to subsidize labor costs for Wal-Mart? "It's like seeing the thermostat is broken in the house, so we take a wrench to the engine of the car. It makes no sense to me whatsoever." I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot agree with any basis for that comparison. Why is it bonkers to tell a company, "Hey, make sure you're paying your full time employees enough so that the government does not have to pick up the slack." Especially one so big and profitable as Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has exactly no excuse whatsoever to not pay their employees enough to not need food stamps.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"I'm not sure why people blame Wal-Mart if their employees take food stamps" Because that means that Wal-Mart is not paying their employees enough, which means that you and I have to subsidize them. I don't know about you, but it angers me quite a bit that one of the largest and most profitable companies in the country cannot pay its employees enough to be able to eat. "This is really the fault of poorly-written policy." How? How is not entirely the fault of the company that has complete control over how much they pay their employees? "It blows my mind why people blame Wal-Mart and not the folks who developed the legislation of those policies." Because Wal-Mart is entirely responsible for how much they pay their employees.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  This is especially infuriating considering I don't buy anything at Wal-Mart, yet a portion of my tax money is still used to prop up their business model of rock-bottom prices for everyone who does shop there.

telchar 8y ago

The problem is that Wal-Mart doesn't pay a living wage. Are you suggesting instead that the problem is that it's possible for people earning below a living wage to get public assistance?

will_brown 8y ago

>It blows my mind why people blame Wal-Mart and not the folks who developed the legislation of those policies. Because Wal-Mart has the profits to be able to afford to pay full time workers a living wage, but instead of paying a living wage to all full time employees they scoop the profits, and shift that gap to taxpayers. I think most people agree, that if an employer has the profits to pay full time employees enough so they employees are not eligible for food stamps the employer has that obligation. Where the profits exist, businesses should be required to reimburse the government/tax payers for at least the cost of food stamps. Why should tax payers subsidize the food for employees, and their families, of public companies when the profits exist? The worst part is Wal-Mart publicly claims they can’t afford to pay their employees a living wage to the extent they won’t be eligible for food stamps...well it’s simple math walmart profits less the total amount of benefits the employees take...wow the money is there.

sokoloff 8y ago
> I think most people agree, that if an employer has the profits to pay full time employees enough so they employees are not eligible for food stamps the employer has that obligation. I'm not so sure that most people agree. (For example, I do not.) It seems that if most people agreed, we might be closer to a world where it was policy or law (another form of conditional minimum wage, perhaps).
- eldavido 8y ago
  Thank you, this is exactly my point. I don't buy the concept of "living wage" but that's not even what's at issue. I just think it's folly to blame Wal-Mart employees for availing themselves of a legally available social benefit program. I don't care where a person is politically. The private sector's job is profit maximization, not social welfare. There's this growing school of thought in the US that thinks it's the private sector's duty to "Take care of people". I'm not sure how we got it into our head that that should be the responsibility of private businesses. We have a government for that. It seems absolutely bonkers to start messing with the fundamental machinery of corporate law if the goal is social welfare. It's like seeing the thermostat is broken in the house, so we take a wrench to the engine of the car. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >There's this growing school of thought in the US that thinks it's the private sector's duty to "Take care of people". It would seem to me the growing school of thought is it’s the taxpayers duty to “take care of corporations”. It’s not the taxpayers job to buy Wal-Mart employees and their families food. How can you conclude that an employer paying its employees enough so the don’t qualify for food stamps is “social welfare”? Food stamps in and of themselves are social welfare, the fact the employees qualify become corporate welfare.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    And I also don't care where a person is politically; the private sector's obligation is to not leave their employees on public assistance. The government, and by extension you and I are not there to subsidize Wal-Mart. "I'm not sure how we got it into our head that that should be the responsibility of private businesses." Well, why do you believe that it's our duty to subsidize labor costs for Wal-Mart? "It's like seeing the thermostat is broken in the house, so we take a wrench to the engine of the car. It makes no sense to me whatsoever." I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot agree with any basis for that comparison. Why is it bonkers to tell a company, "Hey, make sure you're paying your full time employees enough so that the government does not have to pick up the slack." Especially one so big and profitable as Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has exactly no excuse whatsoever to not pay their employees enough to not need food stamps.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"I'm not sure why people blame Wal-Mart if their employees take food stamps" Because that means that Wal-Mart is not paying their employees enough, which means that you and I have to subsidize them. I don't know about you, but it angers me quite a bit that one of the largest and most profitable companies in the country cannot pay its employees enough to be able to eat. "This is really the fault of poorly-written policy." How? How is not entirely the fault of the company that has complete control over how much they pay their employees? "It blows my mind why people blame Wal-Mart and not the folks who developed the legislation of those policies." Because Wal-Mart is entirely responsible for how much they pay their employees.

jschwartzi 8y ago
This is especially infuriating considering I don't buy anything at Wal-Mart, yet a portion of my tax money is still used to prop up their business model of rock-bottom prices for everyone who does shop there.