3 ms·

> Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external re

> Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external resources. You hear this a lot, but I haven't seen any data that support it. According to census data, among "householders" (presumable the head of a given household) in the bottom quintile, 68% do not work, 13% work part time, and only 18% work full time. 62% of households in the bottom quintile have zero workers in the home.[0] In both the bottom and second-lowest quintile, the mean number of earners per household is less than 1! [0] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-by-household-demographics-2015-update/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-...

runako 4y ago
I don't have recent figures handy, but I think 18% qualifies as "many" when you are talking about potentially tens of millions of affected individuals (including dependents). The argument against living wage isn't bootstrapping a strategic industry or national defense, it's so that e.g. Walmart can earn $13k in profit per employee instead of (say) $10k profit per employee. It's definitely a legitimate public policy discussion as to whether subsidizing businesses like these is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  "Many", sure. I was just clarifying that it's far "most". Walmart--like every other employer--pays the minimum required to attract workers. The welfare state exists, so of course Walmart and workers take this into account when determining an agreeable wage--why wouldn't they? This isn't nefarious behavior on Walmart's part--it's an unintended (if unsurprising) consequence of the welfare state. Blaming the market for responding to state intervention seems silly.
  - runako 4y ago
    Agree this is smart management by Walmart. But it makes sense for taxpayers to ask whether the operant regulations & safety net should be changed such that Walmart had to shoulder a larger portion of the burden for keeping their workers employed.
    - marcusverus 4y ago
      > But it makes sense for taxpayers to ask whether the operant regulations & safety net should be changed such that Walmart had to shoulder a larger portion of the burden for keeping their workers employed. I think we're on the same page for the most part. My hesitation stems from this common framing of the problem as one that--at least rhetorically--originates with Walmart. To me, this framing seems to have less to do with the actual problem, its cause and potential solutions, than with political convenience. That wouldn't be a concern if the folks writing the bills drew a line between rhetoric and policy, but I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation these days. It seems to me that the origin of the problem is with the nature of the welfare state, and that solving the problem at its root will require changes to the welfare state and the incentives that it creates. I'm not saying we should blow it up the welfare state, but if we can't even admit that our problems are of our own making, we've got zero chance of solving them.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  Not everyone works for Walmart. Last I checked around half of employees work for “small businesses”. Which probably have various and different profit margins.

runako 4y ago

I don't have recent figures handy, but I think 18% qualifies as "many" when you are talking about potentially tens of millions of affected individuals (including dependents). The argument against living wage isn't bootstrapping a strategic industry or national defense, it's so that e.g. Walmart can earn $13k in profit per employee instead of (say) $10k profit per employee. It's definitely a legitimate public policy discussion as to whether subsidizing businesses like these is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.

marcusverus 4y ago
"Many", sure. I was just clarifying that it's far "most". Walmart--like every other employer--pays the minimum required to attract workers. The welfare state exists, so of course Walmart and workers take this into account when determining an agreeable wage--why wouldn't they? This isn't nefarious behavior on Walmart's part--it's an unintended (if unsurprising) consequence of the welfare state. Blaming the market for responding to state intervention seems silly.
- runako 4y ago
  Agree this is smart management by Walmart. But it makes sense for taxpayers to ask whether the operant regulations & safety net should be changed such that Walmart had to shoulder a larger portion of the burden for keeping their workers employed.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    > But it makes sense for taxpayers to ask whether the operant regulations & safety net should be changed such that Walmart had to shoulder a larger portion of the burden for keeping their workers employed. I think we're on the same page for the most part. My hesitation stems from this common framing of the problem as one that--at least rhetorically--originates with Walmart. To me, this framing seems to have less to do with the actual problem, its cause and potential solutions, than with political convenience. That wouldn't be a concern if the folks writing the bills drew a line between rhetoric and policy, but I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation these days. It seems to me that the origin of the problem is with the nature of the welfare state, and that solving the problem at its root will require changes to the welfare state and the incentives that it creates. I'm not saying we should blow it up the welfare state, but if we can't even admit that our problems are of our own making, we've got zero chance of solving them.
therealdrag0 4y ago
Not everyone works for Walmart. Last I checked around half of employees work for “small businesses”. Which probably have various and different profit margins.