3 ms·

>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 Republi

>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?
- will_brown 8y ago
  >n 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. Walmart bears direct responsibility for these laws, they lobby for and write them. Food stamps, renamed SNAP, is a $70+B a year program and 20% is spent at Walmart. Walmart public statement: “Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors, and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control. These factors include... changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    That business risk is primarily related to the fact that consumers using SNAP shop at Walmart, without regard to whether that shopper is a Walmart employee or not. If a consumer shops at Walmart using SNAP and SNAP is reduced or discontinued, that's a revenue risk for Walmart. If the concern of a sub-thread is Walmart lobbying for self-serving programs for general consumers, I agree with that as a concern, but it's no damn different than the epi-pen people arguing to stock epi-pens in schools by policy, the AED manufacturers campaigning to have AEDs installed all around, etc. I thought this sub-thread was concerned with Walmart employees being on government support programs and that being Walmart's problem to alleviate.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Here is the copy/paste from a Kroger quarterly report, detailing some of its risks: (NB: includes “changes in government-funded benefit programs” as a risk) Kroger's ability to achieve sales, earnings and cash flow goals may be affected by: labor negotiations or disputes; changes in the types and numbers of businesses that compete with Kroger; pricing and promotional activities of existing and new competitors, including non-traditional competitors, and the aggressiveness of that competition; Kroger's response to these actions; the state of the economy, including interest rates, the inflationary and deflationary trends in certain commodities, and the unemployment rate; the effect that fuel costs have on consumer spending; volatility of fuel margins; changes in government-funded benefit programs; manufacturing commodity costs; diesel fuel costs related to Kroger's logistics operations; trends in consumer spending; the extent to which Kroger's customers exercise caution in their purchasing in response to economic conditions; the uncertain pace of economic growth; changes in inflation or deflation in product and operating costs; stock repurchases; Kroger's ability to retain pharmacy sales from third party payors; consolidation in the healthcare industry, including pharmacy benefit managers; Kroger's ability to negotiate modifications to multi-employer pension plans; natural disasters or adverse weather conditions; the potential costs and risks associated with potential cyber-attacks or data security breaches; the success of Kroger's future growth plans; the ability to execute on Restock Kroger; and the successful integration of merged companies and new partnerships. Kroger's ability to achieve sales and earnings goals may also be affected by Kroger's ability to manage the factors identified above. Kroger's ability to execute its financial strategy may be affected by its ability to generate cash flow.

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?

will_brown 8y ago
>n 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. Walmart bears direct responsibility for these laws, they lobby for and write them. Food stamps, renamed SNAP, is a $70+B a year program and 20% is spent at Walmart. Walmart public statement: “Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors, and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control. These factors include... changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”
- sokoloff 8y ago
  That business risk is primarily related to the fact that consumers using SNAP shop at Walmart, without regard to whether that shopper is a Walmart employee or not. If a consumer shops at Walmart using SNAP and SNAP is reduced or discontinued, that's a revenue risk for Walmart. If the concern of a sub-thread is Walmart lobbying for self-serving programs for general consumers, I agree with that as a concern, but it's no damn different than the epi-pen people arguing to stock epi-pens in schools by policy, the AED manufacturers campaigning to have AEDs installed all around, etc. I thought this sub-thread was concerned with Walmart employees being on government support programs and that being Walmart's problem to alleviate.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Here is the copy/paste from a Kroger quarterly report, detailing some of its risks: (NB: includes “changes in government-funded benefit programs” as a risk) Kroger's ability to achieve sales, earnings and cash flow goals may be affected by: labor negotiations or disputes; changes in the types and numbers of businesses that compete with Kroger; pricing and promotional activities of existing and new competitors, including non-traditional competitors, and the aggressiveness of that competition; Kroger's response to these actions; the state of the economy, including interest rates, the inflationary and deflationary trends in certain commodities, and the unemployment rate; the effect that fuel costs have on consumer spending; volatility of fuel margins; changes in government-funded benefit programs; manufacturing commodity costs; diesel fuel costs related to Kroger's logistics operations; trends in consumer spending; the extent to which Kroger's customers exercise caution in their purchasing in response to economic conditions; the uncertain pace of economic growth; changes in inflation or deflation in product and operating costs; stock repurchases; Kroger's ability to retain pharmacy sales from third party payors; consolidation in the healthcare industry, including pharmacy benefit managers; Kroger's ability to negotiate modifications to multi-employer pension plans; natural disasters or adverse weather conditions; the potential costs and risks associated with potential cyber-attacks or data security breaches; the success of Kroger's future growth plans; the ability to execute on Restock Kroger; and the successful integration of merged companies and new partnerships. Kroger's ability to achieve sales and earnings goals may also be affected by Kroger's ability to manage the factors identified above. Kroger's ability to execute its financial strategy may be affected by its ability to generate cash flow.