6 ms·

True. But it goes to a broader social issue. Should a family of 4 where one parent is employed full time by a large organization be earning below the poverty li

True. But it goes to a broader social issue. Should a family of 4 where one parent is employed full time by a large organization be earning below the poverty line. Was it like that 10/20/40 years ago. Where will it be in another 10 years? What's the impact on our social fabric. At the micro level as a rationale economic player you in theory should make that determination. At the macro level it's our job to decide whether we want one income families to be below the poverty line and what are the broader implications of that.

clarky07 13y ago
Yes. If that person is a cashier at Walmart. The value added by that employee is simply not that high. They shouldn't get paid more just because we don't want to be poor. If you only make 20k you shouldn't be having 2 kids. If you continue to make poor life decisions, the outcome is living below the poverty line. Note, that I'm not against helping the poor. Charity is great, and helping people move up is great. Simply telling Walmart they should pay more for the same work is stupid. If you want to make more, you should provide more value.
- lukeschlather 13y ago
  I think you're taking it for granted that people who have money deserve to be given money, and people who don't have money don't deserve handouts. Which is charity: giving a 1% rise in Walmart's profits to its shareholders, or giving that 1% rise in profits to its workers? What makes shareholders intrinsically more deserving of reward for the company's output than employees? Under what circumstances does Walmart giving money to people not qualify as charity? Why is it okay to legally compel Walmart to give shareholders money, but legally compelling Walmart to give its employees money is unfair to Walmart? It's really bizarre to call paying people a fair wage charity.
  - clicks 13y ago
    That is a great response, and it really puts things into perspective. If you're born a millionaire like Paris Hilton, and you capriciously decide to become a large shareholder of Walmart's stocks one day, you... well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything. Even though you're providing zero value to society you make a very large amount of money. In this way, not only is clarky07's profoundly and bizarrely misinformed, it is also selfish and offensive.
    - pedrocr 13y ago
      > well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything I'll be the last to argue that we live in a meritocracy but in your example the capricious heir is in fact providing capital to the economy, taking on the risk that if that business fails the capital is gone.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - clarky07 13y ago
      Actually it's not zero value to society, and you don't just get to watch money roll in. It is providing capital to a business and it is full of risk. If the business fails then the money is gone. The markets play a valuable role in our economy. It is you that is misinformed.
      - lukeschlather 13y ago
        That's true, but the fact remains that shareholders don't really get a larger share of profits than employees because they're more deserving. They get a larger share because they're in a position of power and the employees are powerless to secure a fair share.
        philwelch 13y ago
        Employees don't bear the same risks investors do. They earn their wages risk free, even if they don't generate enough value to justify their pay. They might lose their job, but you never come out of a job with less money than you came in with. Investors wouldn't take risks if they couldn't reap rewards from them, which means workers wouldn't have the jobs either. The end result would be even less fair. In any case, the modal investor isn't Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet, it's an ordinary working stiff trying to save for retirement in his 401k, or a pension fund for workers at other companies.
        13y ago
- philangist 13y ago
  > If you continue to make poor life decisions, the outcome is living below the poverty line. What makes you think everyone who's poor got there from making poor decisions?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Just because someone says that A implies B, does not mean that any B you encounter was a consequence of an A. That is, making poor life decisions will lead you to poverty, but that doesn't mean being in poverty meant you made poor life decisions, and that wasn't claimed AFAICS.
  - clarky07 13y ago
    Didn't say that at all. I said if you make bad decisions you will get a bad outcome. I did not say everyone who has a bad outcome made bad decisions to get there. Subtle but important difference.
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  >The value added by that employee is simply not that high. The corporation would cease to function without them. Paycheck is not a measure of value added. Most of the time it doesn't even correlate to value add.
  - clarky07 13y ago
    No it wouldn't. There are literally billions of other people capable of doing that job.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    While there are exceptions, on average a corporation would pay no more for a person than they think that person is worth, at that point it is better to close the business than continue to lose money. But paychecks are also capped by the price of substitute goods, such as self-cleaning robots, self-checkout and other mechanical help, as well as alternatives like reduced hours or staff.
theorique 13y ago
I guess the question is partly "does the market value the work being done by that one wage earner enough to support a family?" and partly "should the state step in and support a family when the market value of their labor is insufficient to support that family?" And to what level is support needed? No answers here, just questions.
philwelch 13y ago
One-income families of four are only below the poverty line if the sole income earner cannot produce enough value to support a family of four. The problem isn't that people are being exploited and underpaid for the work they do. Maybe it's that the education system has failed to produce more valuable workers: maybe it's that the value of (most) human labor has dipped so far that some level of basic income is necessary.
- asdfdsa1234 13y ago
  Nearly a quarter of the US population was officially in poverty in the 1950s. Doing unskilled work as a sole breadwinner with multiple children has always pretty much meant you would live in "poverty." On a side note, a family of four making $20,000 will qualify for an additional $10,000 in EBT and EITC as well as free healthcare (Medicaid), bringing the wages paid by Walmart and Costco much closer together.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    This. WalMart basically receives a huge public subsidy to underpay their employees in the form of welfare costs. Minimum wage and benefit laws try and shift those costs back to the employer.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      yes your quite right in the UK I have no problem with paying for the NHS et all I do have a problem with subsidizing crap employers "jumped up fucking caterers" as John Clese memorably called them.
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      Well society could also refuse to offer those services, it isn't fair to blame WallMart for not paying their employees so they can afford to buy a good we have decided that they should enjoy.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      And if Wal-Mart didn't exist, these people would have no jobs and require even more public assistance.

clarky07 13y ago

Yes. If that person is a cashier at Walmart. The value added by that employee is simply not that high. They shouldn't get paid more just because we don't want to be poor. If you only make 20k you shouldn't be having 2 kids. If you continue to make poor life decisions, the outcome is living below the poverty line. Note, that I'm not against helping the poor. Charity is great, and helping people move up is great. Simply telling Walmart they should pay more for the same work is stupid. If you want to make more, you should provide more value.

lukeschlather 13y ago
I think you're taking it for granted that people who have money deserve to be given money, and people who don't have money don't deserve handouts. Which is charity: giving a 1% rise in Walmart's profits to its shareholders, or giving that 1% rise in profits to its workers? What makes shareholders intrinsically more deserving of reward for the company's output than employees? Under what circumstances does Walmart giving money to people not qualify as charity? Why is it okay to legally compel Walmart to give shareholders money, but legally compelling Walmart to give its employees money is unfair to Walmart? It's really bizarre to call paying people a fair wage charity.
- clicks 13y ago
  That is a great response, and it really puts things into perspective. If you're born a millionaire like Paris Hilton, and you capriciously decide to become a large shareholder of Walmart's stocks one day, you... well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything. Even though you're providing zero value to society you make a very large amount of money. In this way, not only is clarky07's profoundly and bizarrely misinformed, it is also selfish and offensive.
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    > well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything I'll be the last to argue that we live in a meritocracy but in your example the capricious heir is in fact providing capital to the economy, taking on the risk that if that business fails the capital is gone.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - clarky07 13y ago
    Actually it's not zero value to society, and you don't just get to watch money roll in. It is providing capital to a business and it is full of risk. If the business fails then the money is gone. The markets play a valuable role in our economy. It is you that is misinformed.
    - lukeschlather 13y ago
      That's true, but the fact remains that shareholders don't really get a larger share of profits than employees because they're more deserving. They get a larger share because they're in a position of power and the employees are powerless to secure a fair share.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        Employees don't bear the same risks investors do. They earn their wages risk free, even if they don't generate enough value to justify their pay. They might lose their job, but you never come out of a job with less money than you came in with. Investors wouldn't take risks if they couldn't reap rewards from them, which means workers wouldn't have the jobs either. The end result would be even less fair. In any case, the modal investor isn't Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet, it's an ordinary working stiff trying to save for retirement in his 401k, or a pension fund for workers at other companies.
        13y ago
philangist 13y ago
> If you continue to make poor life decisions, the outcome is living below the poverty line. What makes you think everyone who's poor got there from making poor decisions?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Just because someone says that A implies B, does not mean that any B you encounter was a consequence of an A. That is, making poor life decisions will lead you to poverty, but that doesn't mean being in poverty meant you made poor life decisions, and that wasn't claimed AFAICS.
- clarky07 13y ago
  Didn't say that at all. I said if you make bad decisions you will get a bad outcome. I did not say everyone who has a bad outcome made bad decisions to get there. Subtle but important difference.
crdoconnor 13y ago
>The value added by that employee is simply not that high. The corporation would cease to function without them. Paycheck is not a measure of value added. Most of the time it doesn't even correlate to value add.
- clarky07 13y ago
  No it wouldn't. There are literally billions of other people capable of doing that job.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  While there are exceptions, on average a corporation would pay no more for a person than they think that person is worth, at that point it is better to close the business than continue to lose money. But paychecks are also capped by the price of substitute goods, such as self-cleaning robots, self-checkout and other mechanical help, as well as alternatives like reduced hours or staff.

theorique 13y ago

I guess the question is partly "does the market value the work being done by that one wage earner enough to support a family?" and partly "should the state step in and support a family when the market value of their labor is insufficient to support that family?" And to what level is support needed? No answers here, just questions.

philwelch 13y ago

One-income families of four are only below the poverty line if the sole income earner cannot produce enough value to support a family of four. The problem isn't that people are being exploited and underpaid for the work they do. Maybe it's that the education system has failed to produce more valuable workers: maybe it's that the value of (most) human labor has dipped so far that some level of basic income is necessary.

asdfdsa1234 13y ago
Nearly a quarter of the US population was officially in poverty in the 1950s. Doing unskilled work as a sole breadwinner with multiple children has always pretty much meant you would live in "poverty." On a side note, a family of four making $20,000 will qualify for an additional $10,000 in EBT and EITC as well as free healthcare (Medicaid), bringing the wages paid by Walmart and Costco much closer together.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  This. WalMart basically receives a huge public subsidy to underpay their employees in the form of welfare costs. Minimum wage and benefit laws try and shift those costs back to the employer.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    yes your quite right in the UK I have no problem with paying for the NHS et all I do have a problem with subsidizing crap employers "jumped up fucking caterers" as John Clese memorably called them.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    Well society could also refuse to offer those services, it isn't fair to blame WallMart for not paying their employees so they can afford to buy a good we have decided that they should enjoy.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    And if Wal-Mart didn't exist, these people would have no jobs and require even more public assistance.