5 ms·

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 em

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
    I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I’m not necessarily saying Walmart needs to pay its workers more, but singling our Walmart, yes, they should have to reimburse the government. How can one not single out Walmart when more Walmart employees get food stamps than any other company, walmart directly receives $14B in revenue of this taxpayer money, and Walmart lobbies to keep these laws in place (and writes them). The average joe minimum wage worker doesn’t have a level playing field and is less likely to successfully lobby the government to up minimum wage as Walmart is successful in lobbying to increase SNAP benefits in a given year. It’s not a minimum wage issue it’s that Walmart is the beneficiary of taxpayer money ($14B/year) not to mention the indirect benefit of taxpayers having to subsidize the Walmart workforce (which other companies don’t necessarily receive period)
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      They're the beneficiary of taxpayer money primarily by selling food to SNAP recipients. Shall we layer excess taxes on businesses who take SNAP? Do you think that will make lives better for people living on the economic margins? I don't think it's "counter intuitive" to single out a specific business for targeted policy; I rather more simply think that it's "wrong".

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
  I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I’m not necessarily saying Walmart needs to pay its workers more, but singling our Walmart, yes, they should have to reimburse the government. How can one not single out Walmart when more Walmart employees get food stamps than any other company, walmart directly receives $14B in revenue of this taxpayer money, and Walmart lobbies to keep these laws in place (and writes them). The average joe minimum wage worker doesn’t have a level playing field and is less likely to successfully lobby the government to up minimum wage as Walmart is successful in lobbying to increase SNAP benefits in a given year. It’s not a minimum wage issue it’s that Walmart is the beneficiary of taxpayer money ($14B/year) not to mention the indirect benefit of taxpayers having to subsidize the Walmart workforce (which other companies don’t necessarily receive period)
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    They're the beneficiary of taxpayer money primarily by selling food to SNAP recipients. Shall we layer excess taxes on businesses who take SNAP? Do you think that will make lives better for people living on the economic margins? I don't think it's "counter intuitive" to single out a specific business for targeted policy; I rather more simply think that it's "wrong".