4 ms·

No, it doesn’t. These people receiving benefits and working at Walmart would almost certainly be entitled to more benefits if they were unemployed.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bena 2y ago
Walmart should be paying a living wage. If you are employed full time, you should not qualify. Walmart does not pay enough, they rely on the government to make up the shortfall.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Wet streets don’t cause rain (at least not as directly as the correlated observation suggests). If government benefits are set at a level higher than the prevailing market-clearing wage, perhaps the benefit level should be reduced, perhaps the minimum wage should be raised, or perhaps that Walmart should close its doors, which surely would increase rather than decrease government benefit expenditures. Wishing that there were more high-paying jobs than currently are able to be supported in a local economy rarely works.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    you guys are both missing the actual point in my opinion. Yes you are 100 % right if it's a competitive market, it isn't though. Walmart exercises its considerable market power to push wages, benefits, etc. down. They are wrong to argue for more government intervention with minimum wage increases, etc. though. That just opens a pathway for corruption of government. Instead, the correct solution is break up walmart.
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      Are you arguing that Walmart has some kind of outsized power in their capacity as an employer with only 1.6M employees (full and part time) in the US?
      - snapplebobapple 2y ago
        of course they do, especially in the communities mentioned in the original article, where they employ a substantial amount of the low skilled labor. You can't look at their employee count in the context of the USA, employment, especially low skilled employment, is very local and sticky.
        sokoloff 2y ago
        Breaking up Walmart is a possible answer to the US-wide influence, but wouldn’t address the local employment market. Walmart Local Town would still be the big employer in some towns. (And, to the extent that Walmart Local Town is providing better jobs than the next best alternative for town employees, they should be lauded rather than vilified, IMO.)
        snapplebobapple 2y ago
        That is incorrect because the us wide nature is what gives it the firepower to ensure no other employers emerge via agressive price competition anywhere they do emerge until the new competitor fails. Walmart local town would have staying profitable at that location as a constraint on competition. Also breaking them up is the correct antitrust mechanism not because of what walmart is doing but because the corruptibility of humanity makes regulatory action almost always fail in the long run. The government can't be trusted to regulate them to a better position for more than a very finite amoubt of time so it is better to not grow the government regulatory arm and instead break the company up to solve the issue.
  - gopher_space 2y ago
    The local economy supports high paying Walmart jobs in another state. If it wasn’t able to do that there would be no Walmart.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Many local communities doesn't have a Walmart, so yeah.
burnte 2y ago
No one working should need welfare benefits. If they are eligible for more when working that shows me the system is broken. When my mother was on SSDI, after the first $84 earned, she lost $0.50 for every $1.00 she earned, which encourages work when possible but doesn't punish people for getting jobs.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bena 2y ago

Walmart should be paying a living wage. If you are employed full time, you should not qualify. Walmart does not pay enough, they rely on the government to make up the shortfall.

sokoloff 2y ago
Wet streets don’t cause rain (at least not as directly as the correlated observation suggests). If government benefits are set at a level higher than the prevailing market-clearing wage, perhaps the benefit level should be reduced, perhaps the minimum wage should be raised, or perhaps that Walmart should close its doors, which surely would increase rather than decrease government benefit expenditures. Wishing that there were more high-paying jobs than currently are able to be supported in a local economy rarely works.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  you guys are both missing the actual point in my opinion. Yes you are 100 % right if it's a competitive market, it isn't though. Walmart exercises its considerable market power to push wages, benefits, etc. down. They are wrong to argue for more government intervention with minimum wage increases, etc. though. That just opens a pathway for corruption of government. Instead, the correct solution is break up walmart.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Are you arguing that Walmart has some kind of outsized power in their capacity as an employer with only 1.6M employees (full and part time) in the US?
    - snapplebobapple 2y ago
      of course they do, especially in the communities mentioned in the original article, where they employ a substantial amount of the low skilled labor. You can't look at their employee count in the context of the USA, employment, especially low skilled employment, is very local and sticky.
      - sokoloff 2y ago
        Breaking up Walmart is a possible answer to the US-wide influence, but wouldn’t address the local employment market. Walmart Local Town would still be the big employer in some towns. (And, to the extent that Walmart Local Town is providing better jobs than the next best alternative for town employees, they should be lauded rather than vilified, IMO.)
        snapplebobapple 2y ago
        That is incorrect because the us wide nature is what gives it the firepower to ensure no other employers emerge via agressive price competition anywhere they do emerge until the new competitor fails. Walmart local town would have staying profitable at that location as a constraint on competition. Also breaking them up is the correct antitrust mechanism not because of what walmart is doing but because the corruptibility of humanity makes regulatory action almost always fail in the long run. The government can't be trusted to regulate them to a better position for more than a very finite amoubt of time so it is better to not grow the government regulatory arm and instead break the company up to solve the issue.
- gopher_space 2y ago
  The local economy supports high paying Walmart jobs in another state. If it wasn’t able to do that there would be no Walmart.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Many local communities doesn't have a Walmart, so yeah.

burnte 2y ago

No one working should need welfare benefits. If they are eligible for more when working that shows me the system is broken. When my mother was on SSDI, after the first $84 earned, she lost $0.50 for every $1.00 she earned, which encourages work when possible but doesn't punish people for getting jobs.