8 ms·

Maybe that's because they employ so many people, law of large numbers etc.

by efields 3y ago

unethical_ban 3y ago
The idea is that multi hundred billion dollar corporations shouldn't be employing a single person who needs SNAP.
- Fernicia 3y ago
  Online discourse proving once again the worst thing a company can do for PR is employ poor people.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    SNAP is based on income, so anyone that's properly employed should be making too much money to qualify. So is this purely a communication problem, or is there a real a wage/hours problem? If they're offering enough hours and the employee is choosing to be far under full time, then we should phrase things more specifically than "employed". But if anyone that wants to be full time, or is full time, doesn't meet the income threshold, that sounds like Walmart taking advantage of insufficient worker protection.
    - Fernicia 3y ago
      SNAP eligibility is based on household net income. A father of 2, with an unemployed spouse, and medical bills could be earning vastly more than someone single and debt-free, while still qualifying for SNAP when the latter does not. It's silly to put the oneness onto their employers when circumstances can vary so wildly.
      - unethical_ban 3y ago
        Thank you for adding context to your stance after your initial remark.
        unethical_ban 3y ago
        I can't edit my remark, so I'll add to it here: Your comment history shows a pattern of sarcastic commentary and quips instead of good faith statements of opinion.
- Aunche 3y ago
  If Walmart laid off all their employees and replaced them with half as many employees that were paid twice as much, you'd be subsidizing even more people's living expenses. Yet somehow Walmart would be a more ethical company because no of their their own employees would be on SNAP?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Paying half as many people twice as much is way better in general, we don't even need to mention SNAP.
    - Aunche 3y ago
      So if you don't have the skills to be worth twice the compensation, you don't deserve a job at all and it's the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for your expenses?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        What a weird thing to read into my comment. No, I do not think that. Skills didn't even come up. And this isn't the only employer that exists, nor is there a fixed supply of job money in the world. Also, paying half as many people twice the wage is in aggregate roughly the same as cutting typical work hours to 20 per week while maintaining the same pay per week. Where's the downside for the employees? And in particular for the SNAP aspect, the whole point of this discussion is that the current wages were not getting those people out of the SNAP income range, so the taxpayer cost is the same even if Walmart fires all of them and replaces them with nothing.
        Aunche 3y ago
        > And this isn't the only employer that exists If Walmart is bad for employing people who rely on SNAP, then wouldn't it be the same be true for any other business that does the same? > Also, paying half as many people twice the wage is in aggregate roughly the same as cutting typical work hours to 20 per week while maintaining the same pay per week. My point is that it's not roughly the same at all. In one option everyone is still employed, and in the other half the people don't have a job. Obviously, if something magically doubles everyone's productivity, that would be a good thing, but you have to apply that on both sides of the comparison. > taxpayer cost is the same even if Walmart fires all of them and replaces them with nothing. Walmart minimum wage is $14 now. Walmart workers who are single and childless or married to a working couple who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for SNAP would become eligible if they lose their jobs.
- billy99k 3y ago
  I've always hated this argument because it puts the blame solely on the employer, when the employee can also be to blame for their own circumstances. According to this logic, if I'm $300,000 in college debt, it's my employers fault if I can't make ends meet (even if I'm getting paid well).
- missedthecue 3y ago
  This is a bad way to measure things because SNAP benefit qualifications are measured by annual income and number of children. Walmart could pay shelf-stockers $50/hr, but if they have 6 kids and work 20 hours a week, they would actually qualify for food stamps. Does that mean they're underpaid at $50/hr?
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    Does Walmart pay shelf-stockers $50/hr?
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      ... I'm very clearly illustrating a point, not making a factual claim that Walmart pays stockers $50/hr
elzbardico 3y ago
Let's also remember that in the real world outside of our bubble, 20, 30hrs week jobs are basically what a single mom with limited access to child-care can afford to work.

Maybe that's because they employ so many people, law of large numbers etc.

unethical_ban 3y ago

The idea is that multi hundred billion dollar corporations shouldn't be employing a single person who needs SNAP.

Fernicia 3y ago
Online discourse proving once again the worst thing a company can do for PR is employ poor people.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  SNAP is based on income, so anyone that's properly employed should be making too much money to qualify. So is this purely a communication problem, or is there a real a wage/hours problem? If they're offering enough hours and the employee is choosing to be far under full time, then we should phrase things more specifically than "employed". But if anyone that wants to be full time, or is full time, doesn't meet the income threshold, that sounds like Walmart taking advantage of insufficient worker protection.
  - Fernicia 3y ago
    SNAP eligibility is based on household net income. A father of 2, with an unemployed spouse, and medical bills could be earning vastly more than someone single and debt-free, while still qualifying for SNAP when the latter does not. It's silly to put the oneness onto their employers when circumstances can vary so wildly.
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      Thank you for adding context to your stance after your initial remark.
      - unethical_ban 3y ago
        I can't edit my remark, so I'll add to it here: Your comment history shows a pattern of sarcastic commentary and quips instead of good faith statements of opinion.
Aunche 3y ago
If Walmart laid off all their employees and replaced them with half as many employees that were paid twice as much, you'd be subsidizing even more people's living expenses. Yet somehow Walmart would be a more ethical company because no of their their own employees would be on SNAP?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Paying half as many people twice as much is way better in general, we don't even need to mention SNAP.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    So if you don't have the skills to be worth twice the compensation, you don't deserve a job at all and it's the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for your expenses?
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      What a weird thing to read into my comment. No, I do not think that. Skills didn't even come up. And this isn't the only employer that exists, nor is there a fixed supply of job money in the world. Also, paying half as many people twice the wage is in aggregate roughly the same as cutting typical work hours to 20 per week while maintaining the same pay per week. Where's the downside for the employees? And in particular for the SNAP aspect, the whole point of this discussion is that the current wages were not getting those people out of the SNAP income range, so the taxpayer cost is the same even if Walmart fires all of them and replaces them with nothing.
      - Aunche 3y ago
        > And this isn't the only employer that exists If Walmart is bad for employing people who rely on SNAP, then wouldn't it be the same be true for any other business that does the same? > Also, paying half as many people twice the wage is in aggregate roughly the same as cutting typical work hours to 20 per week while maintaining the same pay per week. My point is that it's not roughly the same at all. In one option everyone is still employed, and in the other half the people don't have a job. Obviously, if something magically doubles everyone's productivity, that would be a good thing, but you have to apply that on both sides of the comparison. > taxpayer cost is the same even if Walmart fires all of them and replaces them with nothing. Walmart minimum wage is $14 now. Walmart workers who are single and childless or married to a working couple who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for SNAP would become eligible if they lose their jobs.
billy99k 3y ago
I've always hated this argument because it puts the blame solely on the employer, when the employee can also be to blame for their own circumstances. According to this logic, if I'm $300,000 in college debt, it's my employers fault if I can't make ends meet (even if I'm getting paid well).
missedthecue 3y ago
This is a bad way to measure things because SNAP benefit qualifications are measured by annual income and number of children. Walmart could pay shelf-stockers $50/hr, but if they have 6 kids and work 20 hours a week, they would actually qualify for food stamps. Does that mean they're underpaid at $50/hr?
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  Does Walmart pay shelf-stockers $50/hr?
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    ... I'm very clearly illustrating a point, not making a factual claim that Walmart pays stockers $50/hr

elzbardico 3y ago

Let's also remember that in the real world outside of our bubble, 20, 30hrs week jobs are basically what a single mom with limited access to child-care can afford to work.