5 ms·

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 b

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".
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      And I disagree. When you have one of the largest, most profitable companies giving their employees application forms for public assistance, they are the ones who are wrong, and they absolutely should be singled out and shamed for it.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        Individuals and businesses/groups can be singled out any given group or person for "shame". No problem; that's free speech. Individuals and businesses/groups ought not be targeted by governments for differential policy treatment, IMO. That's an improper use/abuse of power.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        I disagree. This would be the US Government telling a shitty company that they no longer want to subsidize their shitty business practices with taxpayer dollars anymore.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        Which shitty business practice? Selling food to poor people to make them less hungry? Or employing them to make them less bored, more purposeful, and to have more money than if they were unemployed? Would you like to run a business in an environment where the government is free to single you out for differentially hostile treatment?

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".
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    And I disagree. When you have one of the largest, most profitable companies giving their employees application forms for public assistance, they are the ones who are wrong, and they absolutely should be singled out and shamed for it.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Individuals and businesses/groups can be singled out any given group or person for "shame". No problem; that's free speech. Individuals and businesses/groups ought not be targeted by governments for differential policy treatment, IMO. That's an improper use/abuse of power.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        I disagree. This would be the US Government telling a shitty company that they no longer want to subsidize their shitty business practices with taxpayer dollars anymore.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        Which shitty business practice? Selling food to poor people to make them less hungry? Or employing them to make them less bored, more purposeful, and to have more money than if they were unemployed? Would you like to run a business in an environment where the government is free to single you out for differentially hostile treatment?