5 ms·

But when the corporations don't pay employees a living wage and they end up on welfare, that's your money too.

cscurmudgeon 6y ago
Is there a scientific study that shows a causation, or at least a correlation, between X and Y: X: "start focusing on the millions and billions being raked in by corporations and the rich" and Y: "corporations don't pay employees a living wage and they end up on welfare"
- WalterSear 6y ago
  > Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups. https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-public-assistance https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxp...
  - refurb 6y ago
    A progressive group blames Walmart? No surprise there. I guess the alternative is what? Get rid of Walmart jobs? Will people be better off then?
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      > I don't care what corporations pay their people, that's not my money. I care what the gov't pays people, because that's my money. You’ve just been given an example that demonstrates the two are linked, with corporations underpaying their staff, subsidised by the government. Do you have the same opposition to govt subsidies on underpaid private workers as to do for what you presumably consider to be overpaid public workers? Note that Walmart is posting billions in net (not gross) profits, while the employees are using food stamps.
      - rtx 6y ago
        Isn't there a minimum wage law in USA, I doubt corporation of this size will be so balant.
        WalterSear 6y ago
        Hasn't increased to keep up with the cost of living in 50 years. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022615/can-family-survive-us-minimum-wage.aspEwjDkK6Z-cnrAhXIup4KHXsGDSMQFjABegQIDRAG&usg=AOvVaw00UFpgEXOpyxzhx5CW1MZg https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
        rtx 6y ago
        Shouldn't the voters be responsible for that instead of Walmart. This looks like a way to blame Walmart for ignoring your democratic duties.
        pas 6y ago
        Blaming Walmart while lamenting the shortcomings of the system can be done at the same time. Usually blaming big corps is a bit more effective than trying to untangle US democracy/politics (first past the post, healthcare/education costs skyrocketing, employment and health insurance too strongly entwined, race, religion and ideology takes the center stage not poverty, because path dependence of the affected groups).
        oarsinsync 6y ago
        So who do you vote for if you want to ensure fair living wages for all? How do you align that particular interest with all the other interests you have? What if you're an MAGA supporter, against tax cuts for the rich, in support of equal treatment of all ethnicities and religions, believe in additional rights and protections for police, pro life, pro gun-control, pro living wages and universal healthcare. What is your democratic duty? Who do you vote for? Which candidate enables you to vote for everything that matters to you? Every issue cannot simply be distilled down to which candidate you voted for. Especially if the issues you care about are unlikely to be handled properly by either candidate, if only because the executive branch doesn't wield unlimited power (thankfully), and the branches of government are no longer demonstrating any willingness to work together (unfortunately). The issue remains systemic, and instead of targeting the individuals "for ignoring [their] democratic duties", the system itself would benefit from meaningful changes.
    - pas 6y ago
      Negative Income Tax, or any linear system (as in a safety net that does not have discontinuities/jumps, so it doesn't make folks choose between having a shitty job or getting a shitty unemployment income).
RestlessMind 6y ago
Yes, that just means so we should also fight corporations paying people too low that they show up on welfare. That doesn't mean we should just ignore government employees and politicians banding together to fleece future taxpayers. More than one thing can be bad and can be fought against.

Is there a scientific study that shows a causation, or at least a correlation, between X and Y: X: "start focusing on the millions and billions being raked in by corporations and the rich" and Y: "corporations don't pay employees a living wage and they end up on welfare"

WalterSear 6y ago
> Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups. https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-public-assistance https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxp...
- refurb 6y ago
  A progressive group blames Walmart? No surprise there. I guess the alternative is what? Get rid of Walmart jobs? Will people be better off then?
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    > I don't care what corporations pay their people, that's not my money. I care what the gov't pays people, because that's my money. You’ve just been given an example that demonstrates the two are linked, with corporations underpaying their staff, subsidised by the government. Do you have the same opposition to govt subsidies on underpaid private workers as to do for what you presumably consider to be overpaid public workers? Note that Walmart is posting billions in net (not gross) profits, while the employees are using food stamps.
    - rtx 6y ago
      Isn't there a minimum wage law in USA, I doubt corporation of this size will be so balant.
      - WalterSear 6y ago
        Hasn't increased to keep up with the cost of living in 50 years. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022615/can-family-survive-us-minimum-wage.aspEwjDkK6Z-cnrAhXIup4KHXsGDSMQFjABegQIDRAG&usg=AOvVaw00UFpgEXOpyxzhx5CW1MZg https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
        rtx 6y ago
        Shouldn't the voters be responsible for that instead of Walmart. This looks like a way to blame Walmart for ignoring your democratic duties.
        pas 6y ago
        Blaming Walmart while lamenting the shortcomings of the system can be done at the same time. Usually blaming big corps is a bit more effective than trying to untangle US democracy/politics (first past the post, healthcare/education costs skyrocketing, employment and health insurance too strongly entwined, race, religion and ideology takes the center stage not poverty, because path dependence of the affected groups).
        oarsinsync 6y ago
        So who do you vote for if you want to ensure fair living wages for all? How do you align that particular interest with all the other interests you have? What if you're an MAGA supporter, against tax cuts for the rich, in support of equal treatment of all ethnicities and religions, believe in additional rights and protections for police, pro life, pro gun-control, pro living wages and universal healthcare. What is your democratic duty? Who do you vote for? Which candidate enables you to vote for everything that matters to you? Every issue cannot simply be distilled down to which candidate you voted for. Especially if the issues you care about are unlikely to be handled properly by either candidate, if only because the executive branch doesn't wield unlimited power (thankfully), and the branches of government are no longer demonstrating any willingness to work together (unfortunately). The issue remains systemic, and instead of targeting the individuals "for ignoring [their] democratic duties", the system itself would benefit from meaningful changes.
  - pas 6y ago
    Negative Income Tax, or any linear system (as in a safety net that does not have discontinuities/jumps, so it doesn't make folks choose between having a shitty job or getting a shitty unemployment income).

RestlessMind 6y ago

Yes, that just means so we should also fight corporations paying people too low that they show up on welfare. That doesn't mean we should just ignore government employees and politicians banding together to fleece future taxpayers. More than one thing can be bad and can be fought against.