3 ms·

> If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterpr

by drcode 13y ago

> If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. This is the core flaw in your argument. First of all, it is obviously wrong on the surface (i.e. Wal-Mart reports profits every quarter) and even the argument you actually MEANT to make is wrong (No, it is not intrinsically better for society to have CostCo come in and hiring fewer employees and have more people needing full assistance, vs. WalMart come in and hiring more people needing partial assistance.)

imgabe 13y ago
Profits = Revenue - Costs If a portion of your costs are paid not by revenue, but by taxpayer subsidy, and if the loss of that subsidy makes your costs exceed your revenue, then you are not technically profitable. Especially in instances like this, when the taxpayers decide they don't want to pay for your costs anymore "Intrinsically better" - whatever that is supposed to mean - has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about whether it's better for the DC government as that's what's driving the DC government's decision. If you reduce a portion of the people on public aid to partial aid, you still have the administrative cost of distributing that aid, so you're only saving the amount you're actually paying out. If you can move even a smaller portion off of the aid completely, you may be able to reduce the infrastructure you need to distribute the aid and save even more money. It's not like I have the numbers in front of me, but it isn't exactly perfectly clear which is better necessarily. Obviously lots of people on the DC council think the latter is going to be preferable. More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be.
- drcode 13y ago
  > More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be. That's an optimistic view of the government. I think it's more likely the government think that saying "Wal-Mart Bad!" will help them get elected. I don't see any clear evidence from anyone here that preventing poor people from getting employment at WalMart in DC is going to improve their lives. I think the council is hurting DC. Luckily, I recently moved out of DC, so I guess if they want to go out of their way to hurt their economy and give their lost opportunities to other districts/cities instead I'm fine with that.

by drcode 13y ago

imgabe 13y ago

Profits = Revenue - Costs If a portion of your costs are paid not by revenue, but by taxpayer subsidy, and if the loss of that subsidy makes your costs exceed your revenue, then you are not technically profitable. Especially in instances like this, when the taxpayers decide they don't want to pay for your costs anymore "Intrinsically better" - whatever that is supposed to mean - has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about whether it's better for the DC government as that's what's driving the DC government's decision. If you reduce a portion of the people on public aid to partial aid, you still have the administrative cost of distributing that aid, so you're only saving the amount you're actually paying out. If you can move even a smaller portion off of the aid completely, you may be able to reduce the infrastructure you need to distribute the aid and save even more money. It's not like I have the numbers in front of me, but it isn't exactly perfectly clear which is better necessarily. Obviously lots of people on the DC council think the latter is going to be preferable. More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be.

drcode 13y ago
> More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be. That's an optimistic view of the government. I think it's more likely the government think that saying "Wal-Mart Bad!" will help them get elected. I don't see any clear evidence from anyone here that preventing poor people from getting employment at WalMart in DC is going to improve their lives. I think the council is hurting DC. Luckily, I recently moved out of DC, so I guess if they want to go out of their way to hurt their economy and give their lost opportunities to other districts/cities instead I'm fine with that.