5 ms·

It is not entirely untrue. EBT is essentially subsidizing businesses using tax dollars. If a business cannot survive without paying people liveable wages, it sh

It is not entirely untrue. EBT is essentially subsidizing businesses using tax dollars. If a business cannot survive without paying people liveable wages, it should not survive. Yet they exist because the government shares the burden of those wages. There is absolutely no reason why someone who works for Amazon or Uber or all the fancy tech companies where the upper management takes millions should not earn liveable wages and rely on food stamps to supplement their income.

slibhb 4y ago
Why do you get to decide which businesses should survive? The market decides, just like it sets wages. Your argument is that, if we get rid of welfare, companies will raise wages. So welfare is just taxpayers subsidizing companies. You've constructed an argument to get rid of welfare!
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Government allows the market to exist in a form agreed to via policy. Wages, for example, are set via wage floors.
  - slibhb 4y ago
    Oh okay, then let's set the minimum wage to 100K per year. Then everyone can own two cars and a home.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Minimum wage in Australia is $21/hr and their economy is very much functional (besides all of the housing stock soaked up by Chinese investors). I’m not going to argue excessively with someone who’s ideologically driven and putting forth hyperbole (no one is advocating for $100k/year minimum wages), but there is clearly room to arrive at a living wage from where the US is currently at due to a lack of inflation adjustment, via policy.
      - slibhb 4y ago
        So it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $21/hr but a bad thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $50/hr (100k/year). Where is the cut off exactly?
        paranoidrobot 4y ago
        It's not a single fixed number. It is, or should be, a living wage[1]. Someone in full employment should be able to meet their basic needs and that of any dependants. This includes things like healthcare, housing, food, transport, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
        defrost 4y ago
        Ahhh .. we had that debate at length 116 years ago in Australia. Harvester Judgement In 1907 Justice Henry Bourne Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, set the first federally arbitrated wages standard in Australia. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins took the pioneering approach of hearing evidence from not only male workers but also their wives to determine what was a fair and reasonable wage for a working man to support a family of five. It's been modified and tweaked a few times since but the minimum wage (in a G-20 country with AAA credit rating and consistently performent GDP, good health and education, etc) is generally bench marked to support food and housing for an atomic family unit. I dare say central north america might make some movement there within a century or two.
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  Well getting rid of welfare will not force the market to raise wages, it will only add to the human misery and exploitation. People need to live, in order to live, they need money. Remove welfare and you’re just opening up more abuse and exploitation. The right solution here would be for the government to enforce minimum wages in a way that is reflective of the true cost of living in a local setting. No exceptions.
gruez 4y ago
> It is not entirely untrue. EBT is essentially subsidizing businesses using tax dollars. If a business cannot survive without paying people liveable wages, it should not survive. Yet they exist because the government shares the burden of those wages. Why is the "subsidy" to the business and not to the person? After all, it's not like if the person stops being an employee, that he won't have any food needs. What you're claiming is basically the copenhagen interpretation of ethics. A person on foodstamps working at walmart is walmart's fault, because walmart is the employer. However, if the person ends up being unemployed, but still needs foodstamps (or even more, because he's not drawing an income) then it's uhh... nobody's fault?
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  Well if you’re able to work and don’t then it is your fault. But if you work full time and companies don’t pay you liveable wage, then it’s the company’s fault. If you’re able to work and there are not enough jobs then it’s the government’s fault. And if you can’t work for some reason then it is no one’s fault. Social safety nets should be a way for people to fall back on when circumstances force you out of a job. They should not be a default so that big corporations can pay you less.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Social safety nets should be a way for people to fall back on when circumstances force you out of a job. They should not be a default so that big corporations can pay you less. How does providing welfare make it so "big corporations can pay you less"? Is the the thinking that if your expenses were $1500/month, your job paid you $1000/month, and the welfare provided you $500/month, that you'd not demand $500 from your employer?
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>no reason why someone who works for Amazon ... should not earn liveable wages and rely on food stamps to supplement their income. Amazon average starting pay is now $19/hr for front-line. A full-time worker on $19/hr is not SNAP eligible until they're the sole earner for a family size of four.
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  You are not incorrect, $19/hour full time is not SNAP eligible. However, Amazon intentionally hires workers that technically are not full time, not because workers don’t want to work more, but because the company manages its workforce in a way where certain percentage of the employees are not full time. Also, $19 is not the starting wage for all over the country.

slibhb 4y ago

Why do you get to decide which businesses should survive? The market decides, just like it sets wages. Your argument is that, if we get rid of welfare, companies will raise wages. So welfare is just taxpayers subsidizing companies. You've constructed an argument to get rid of welfare!

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Government allows the market to exist in a form agreed to via policy. Wages, for example, are set via wage floors.
- slibhb 4y ago
  Oh okay, then let's set the minimum wage to 100K per year. Then everyone can own two cars and a home.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Minimum wage in Australia is $21/hr and their economy is very much functional (besides all of the housing stock soaked up by Chinese investors). I’m not going to argue excessively with someone who’s ideologically driven and putting forth hyperbole (no one is advocating for $100k/year minimum wages), but there is clearly room to arrive at a living wage from where the US is currently at due to a lack of inflation adjustment, via policy.
    - slibhb 4y ago
      So it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $21/hr but a bad thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $50/hr (100k/year). Where is the cut off exactly?
      - paranoidrobot 4y ago
        It's not a single fixed number. It is, or should be, a living wage[1]. Someone in full employment should be able to meet their basic needs and that of any dependants. This includes things like healthcare, housing, food, transport, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
      - defrost 4y ago
        Ahhh .. we had that debate at length 116 years ago in Australia. Harvester Judgement In 1907 Justice Henry Bourne Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, set the first federally arbitrated wages standard in Australia. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins took the pioneering approach of hearing evidence from not only male workers but also their wives to determine what was a fair and reasonable wage for a working man to support a family of five. It's been modified and tweaked a few times since but the minimum wage (in a G-20 country with AAA credit rating and consistently performent GDP, good health and education, etc) is generally bench marked to support food and housing for an atomic family unit. I dare say central north america might make some movement there within a century or two.
darth_avocado 4y ago
Well getting rid of welfare will not force the market to raise wages, it will only add to the human misery and exploitation. People need to live, in order to live, they need money. Remove welfare and you’re just opening up more abuse and exploitation. The right solution here would be for the government to enforce minimum wages in a way that is reflective of the true cost of living in a local setting. No exceptions.

gruez 4y ago

> It is not entirely untrue. EBT is essentially subsidizing businesses using tax dollars. If a business cannot survive without paying people liveable wages, it should not survive. Yet they exist because the government shares the burden of those wages. Why is the "subsidy" to the business and not to the person? After all, it's not like if the person stops being an employee, that he won't have any food needs. What you're claiming is basically the copenhagen interpretation of ethics. A person on foodstamps working at walmart is walmart's fault, because walmart is the employer. However, if the person ends up being unemployed, but still needs foodstamps (or even more, because he's not drawing an income) then it's uhh... nobody's fault?

darth_avocado 4y ago
Well if you’re able to work and don’t then it is your fault. But if you work full time and companies don’t pay you liveable wage, then it’s the company’s fault. If you’re able to work and there are not enough jobs then it’s the government’s fault. And if you can’t work for some reason then it is no one’s fault. Social safety nets should be a way for people to fall back on when circumstances force you out of a job. They should not be a default so that big corporations can pay you less.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Social safety nets should be a way for people to fall back on when circumstances force you out of a job. They should not be a default so that big corporations can pay you less. How does providing welfare make it so "big corporations can pay you less"? Is the the thinking that if your expenses were $1500/month, your job paid you $1000/month, and the welfare provided you $500/month, that you'd not demand $500 from your employer?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

>no reason why someone who works for Amazon ... should not earn liveable wages and rely on food stamps to supplement their income. Amazon average starting pay is now $19/hr for front-line. A full-time worker on $19/hr is not SNAP eligible until they're the sole earner for a family size of four.

darth_avocado 4y ago
You are not incorrect, $19/hour full time is not SNAP eligible. However, Amazon intentionally hires workers that technically are not full time, not because workers don’t want to work more, but because the company manages its workforce in a way where certain percentage of the employees are not full time. Also, $19 is not the starting wage for all over the country.