5 ms·

"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 e

"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.

5 ms·

"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 e

by marcusverus 4y ago

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.