7 ms·

>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 a

>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.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      If you want Walmart to pay its workers more, force an increase of the minimum wage for all employers to whatever level you decide is proper and has appropriate support. I don't believe in singling out Amazon, Walmart, or <pick a company> as being "too profitable" and thus justifying that they, and not all companies, must pay a higher minimum wage.
      - omegaworks 8y ago
        No one is arguing for a cap on profitability. People arguing for a change in corporate policy are simply pointing out that a non-negligible component of that profitability comes from a reliance on our shared system of social welfare. It's a form of labor cost externalization that directly undermines a worker's purchasing power.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >It seems that if most people agreed, we might be closer to a world where it was policy or law If we lived in a democracy...we live in a Constitutional Republic, the will of the people is often ignored. Another example might be marijuana legalization, where polls clearly show a majority of people want the federal laws changed, yet here we are. Curious how you arrive at the conclusion tax payers should have the obligation to subsidize food for the employees of publicly traded companies, where the companies have the profits to keep said employees off taxpayer funded welfare. Sure if the profits aren’t there I understand, it’s probably better the employees eat, keep their jobs and the company stays in business...but when the profits are there?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    IMO, the short-term profitability of the company is irrelevant to the market rate they pay their workers. If they pay too little, they don't get enough workers. If they pay enough, they do. Long-term profitability / cash flow / available capital/debt all affect the corporations ability to continue to pay wages, so in that sense they set a ceiling. In terms of the government assistance, that is largely unrelated to the employer(s). There is a government program that determines person X is eligible for assistance and person X takes advantage of that program. It is not required that corporations pay an amount such that person X becomes ineligible for the program. For all I know, the eligibility rules take into account family size, student loans, health situation, alimony, or any number of other factors that are literally not the business nor concern of the employer. An employer hires a worker to do a job. They pay that worker, after which point, the sides are square. The fact that a worker is or is not eligible for that program represents a subsidy to that citizen. If the company fired them or they quit, they'd still be eligible for that subsidy (in most cases). It's the decision of society to support its members, and I don't accept the translation to "it's a subsidy of the employer" as being a lossless one. Enacting rules to ensure that companies need to pay more for employees who are on/near welfare or other government programs will likely have a negative effect on hiring those very workers, most of whom are presumably in a fairly precarious situation economically. Do you want Walmart hiring Biff and Muffy, who are not on assistance because of their family situation, rather than hiring Joe and Mary, who are each single parents trying to earn money to lead their kids out of poverty?

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.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    If you want Walmart to pay its workers more, force an increase of the minimum wage for all employers to whatever level you decide is proper and has appropriate support. I don't believe in singling out Amazon, Walmart, or <pick a company> as being "too profitable" and thus justifying that they, and not all companies, must pay a higher minimum wage.
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      No one is arguing for a cap on profitability. People arguing for a change in corporate policy are simply pointing out that a non-negligible component of that profitability comes from a reliance on our shared system of social welfare. It's a form of labor cost externalization that directly undermines a worker's purchasing power.
will_brown 8y ago
>It seems that if most people agreed, we might be closer to a world where it was policy or law If we lived in a democracy...we live in a Constitutional Republic, the will of the people is often ignored. Another example might be marijuana legalization, where polls clearly show a majority of people want the federal laws changed, yet here we are. Curious how you arrive at the conclusion tax payers should have the obligation to subsidize food for the employees of publicly traded companies, where the companies have the profits to keep said employees off taxpayer funded welfare. Sure if the profits aren’t there I understand, it’s probably better the employees eat, keep their jobs and the company stays in business...but when the profits are there?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  IMO, the short-term profitability of the company is irrelevant to the market rate they pay their workers. If they pay too little, they don't get enough workers. If they pay enough, they do. Long-term profitability / cash flow / available capital/debt all affect the corporations ability to continue to pay wages, so in that sense they set a ceiling. In terms of the government assistance, that is largely unrelated to the employer(s). There is a government program that determines person X is eligible for assistance and person X takes advantage of that program. It is not required that corporations pay an amount such that person X becomes ineligible for the program. For all I know, the eligibility rules take into account family size, student loans, health situation, alimony, or any number of other factors that are literally not the business nor concern of the employer. An employer hires a worker to do a job. They pay that worker, after which point, the sides are square. The fact that a worker is or is not eligible for that program represents a subsidy to that citizen. If the company fired them or they quit, they'd still be eligible for that subsidy (in most cases). It's the decision of society to support its members, and I don't accept the translation to "it's a subsidy of the employer" as being a lossless one. Enacting rules to ensure that companies need to pay more for employees who are on/near welfare or other government programs will likely have a negative effect on hiring those very workers, most of whom are presumably in a fairly precarious situation economically. Do you want Walmart hiring Biff and Muffy, who are not on assistance because of their family situation, rather than hiring Joe and Mary, who are each single parents trying to earn money to lead their kids out of poverty?