4 ms·

>The purpose of minimum wage is a floor, It goes deeper than that. There was a documentary that leaked a new Walmart employee going through their initial first

by esaym 4y ago

>The purpose of minimum wage is a floor, It goes deeper than that. There was a documentary that leaked a new Walmart employee going through their initial first day orientation. If you were a new hire and were married and/or had children, you got extra "orientation" on all the government benefits you now qualified for (welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc) since you were now considered below the USA poverty line. I am fine with letting the market regulate itself, but it is not ok that a company can pay employees low because the government will pick up the other half. That is not "self regulation".

Scoundreller 4y ago
It makes sense, kinda. When your public and private social programs are numerous and disconnected, getting a job can mean losing a lot of benefits while qualifying for others. e.g. my employer had a session about their benefits package: If I was on welfare, this would be a change in how everything works. It would have been nice if they had a session on our national pension scheme since I was now obligated to start paying into that.
abfan1127 4y ago
would you prefer they not tell those people about the available benefits?
- mirker 4y ago
  I think the point is Walmart is able to pay at a low enough rate that it must be effectively subsidized by the government. Walmart then plays into it as a further benefit “they” provide.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    The government is setting the price floor for wages. If that price floor falls below the point at which the government will offer benefits to people, then it isn't Walmart that is being subsidized.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  I would prefer that nobody who works 40 hours a week (tops! I'd be happy if the number was less) earns less than the US poverty level for a family with 1 or 2 children (undecided over which). As a matter of law.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I’m sure my 16 year old son would have loved that. And everyone arguing that a company doesn’t deserve to exist if it can’t profitably pay more, is posting on a site funding money losing companies that couldn’t exist if they actually had to make a profit.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Well not quite. They exist because they are profitable on average.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        You think that most companies that are YC funded and seeking additional rounds of funding are profitable?
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        "on average" does not mean "most companies". It could mean that, but in all likelihood it means that some YC funded companies make huge amounts of money for YC that sufficiently balances the losses that they keep doing it. Ya know, like most investment (that works).
        scarface74 4y ago
        That’s not how VCs make money. They make money based on “exits” either via acquisition or IPO. Over the last few years, most companies had exits without ever showing profitability. Joe Bob’s Burgers don’t have the luxury of losing money hoping they can survive long enough to find the “greater fool” either via acquisition or IPO.
cbsmith 4y ago
If you're earning less than $130,000 a year, you are eligible for an FSA, which the HR team will discuss during almost any company's new-hire orientation... There are lots of government benefits that are restricted to people below a certain income. That doesn't mean that it is unconscionable to pay people at that income level or to educate employees on what they are eligible for so that they can take advantage of it.
- sgift 4y ago
  > That doesn't mean that it is unconscionable to pay people at that income level If that income level is the poverty line: Yes, it is.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    So then your problem is with the income level, not educating people about benefits they are eligible for.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >If you're earning less than $130,000 a year, you are eligible for an FSA Assuming you mean a flexible spending account (for healthcare out of pocket), you're certainly not capped at $130K/year in the US. Your broader point is of course true.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    If you are single, the limit is 130,000/yr. After that you can have an HSA, but FSA.
Aunche 4y ago
That's not how economics works. Walmart is paying their employees low despite welfare, not because of it. Without welfare, people would be more desperate for work and would be willing to work for lower wages.
mbostleman 4y ago
>>but it is not ok that a company can pay employees low because the government will pick up the other half>> I don't think this is a situation that applies to the idea of self-regulation. In this case, a distortion of the market is first created by the government subsidy. So the natural behavior of a business would be to leverage it. Just as the natural behavior of the IRS is to go after things like your company's paying for your cell phone and calling it taxable income. I would suggest that the idea of self-regulation is best applied where there are no market distortions from the government that have already warped the context.

by esaym 4y ago

Scoundreller 4y ago

It makes sense, kinda. When your public and private social programs are numerous and disconnected, getting a job can mean losing a lot of benefits while qualifying for others. e.g. my employer had a session about their benefits package: If I was on welfare, this would be a change in how everything works. It would have been nice if they had a session on our national pension scheme since I was now obligated to start paying into that.

abfan1127 4y ago

would you prefer they not tell those people about the available benefits?

mirker 4y ago
I think the point is Walmart is able to pay at a low enough rate that it must be effectively subsidized by the government. Walmart then plays into it as a further benefit “they” provide.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  The government is setting the price floor for wages. If that price floor falls below the point at which the government will offer benefits to people, then it isn't Walmart that is being subsidized.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
I would prefer that nobody who works 40 hours a week (tops! I'd be happy if the number was less) earns less than the US poverty level for a family with 1 or 2 children (undecided over which). As a matter of law.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I’m sure my 16 year old son would have loved that. And everyone arguing that a company doesn’t deserve to exist if it can’t profitably pay more, is posting on a site funding money losing companies that couldn’t exist if they actually had to make a profit.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Well not quite. They exist because they are profitable on average.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      You think that most companies that are YC funded and seeking additional rounds of funding are profitable?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        "on average" does not mean "most companies". It could mean that, but in all likelihood it means that some YC funded companies make huge amounts of money for YC that sufficiently balances the losses that they keep doing it. Ya know, like most investment (that works).
        scarface74 4y ago
        That’s not how VCs make money. They make money based on “exits” either via acquisition or IPO. Over the last few years, most companies had exits without ever showing profitability. Joe Bob’s Burgers don’t have the luxury of losing money hoping they can survive long enough to find the “greater fool” either via acquisition or IPO.

cbsmith 4y ago

If you're earning less than $130,000 a year, you are eligible for an FSA, which the HR team will discuss during almost any company's new-hire orientation... There are lots of government benefits that are restricted to people below a certain income. That doesn't mean that it is unconscionable to pay people at that income level or to educate employees on what they are eligible for so that they can take advantage of it.

sgift 4y ago
> That doesn't mean that it is unconscionable to pay people at that income level If that income level is the poverty line: Yes, it is.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  So then your problem is with the income level, not educating people about benefits they are eligible for.
ghaff 4y ago
>If you're earning less than $130,000 a year, you are eligible for an FSA Assuming you mean a flexible spending account (for healthcare out of pocket), you're certainly not capped at $130K/year in the US. Your broader point is of course true.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  If you are single, the limit is 130,000/yr. After that you can have an HSA, but FSA.

Aunche 4y ago

That's not how economics works. Walmart is paying their employees low despite welfare, not because of it. Without welfare, people would be more desperate for work and would be willing to work for lower wages.

mbostleman 4y ago

>>but it is not ok that a company can pay employees low because the government will pick up the other half>> I don't think this is a situation that applies to the idea of self-regulation. In this case, a distortion of the market is first created by the government subsidy. So the natural behavior of a business would be to leverage it. Just as the natural behavior of the IRS is to go after things like your company's paying for your cell phone and calling it taxable income. I would suggest that the idea of self-regulation is best applied where there are no market distortions from the government that have already warped the context.