4 ms·

I do get tired of terms like "living wage". Clearly the workers are not "dead" or "unliving". It is like the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" terms, deliberately poli

by mchusma 13y ago

I do get tired of terms like "living wage". Clearly the workers are not "dead" or "unliving". It is like the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" terms, deliberately politicizing.

aylons 13y ago
If the government must give these people food stamps so they can live, then Walmart is not paying a living wage. The living wage would be "Walmart wages" + food stamps. Government is subsidizing Walmart by allowing them to pay less than a living wage and complementing the money with US tax payers dollars.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  Food stamps are a fairly broad program -- one fifth of US households receive them. Certainly not all such households would starve to death without them, it's a politically palatable cash substitute.
  - camus2 13y ago
    > Certainly not all such households would starve to death Yeah, let's them simply "starve" then, but not to death, hey ? , I cant believe people can write things like that.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Its so deeply worked into the farm bill every time and farm rules and subsidies, its basically a political nightmare to break out and change.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  If the government must give these people food stamps so they can live... They don't. Where I live, GDP/capita adjusting for PPP is less than what you'd make earning $8.25/hour at walmart working 20 hours/week with no govt benefits of any kind. There is no mass die-off. (Note: my numbers are adjusted for cost of living. So don't tell me that "it's cheaper here" - I'm taking that into account. Unlike the US poor, people here live in crowded apartments, take shared transport to work, and learn to survive without 24/7 water.) You are simply wrong. The government is subsidizing poor people's consumption, not walmart.
eloisant 13y ago
So how would you call a wage that's enough to cover living expenses?
- protomyth 13y ago
  A career job, just like it was in the old days.
  - cdcarter 13y ago
    So you think working for a fast food restaurant that _does_ pay a living wage (like Dick's, in Seattle) while you work your way thorough college ought to be classified as a "Career Job"?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      No, I think you should consider yourself lucky that you found a employer willing to pay that amount for a part time gig. There was once two job tracks: part time pickup money and career. Starving out the part time work kills off a lot of opportunity since the higher the wage, the more competent an employer will require the employee to be.
protomyth 13y ago
I get tired of it because it is a fairly dumb concept to apply to every job. We once had jobs teenagers would get part time to get some spending money. The "living wage" proponents are trying to remove this entirely. We need to be talking about the next job, not a Wal-Mart shelf stacker. Our rush to destroy anything that isn't a college driven education is just coming back to bite us hard.

by mchusma 13y ago

I do get tired of terms like "living wage". Clearly the workers are not "dead" or "unliving". It is like the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" terms, deliberately politicizing.

aylons 13y ago

If the government must give these people food stamps so they can live, then Walmart is not paying a living wage. The living wage would be "Walmart wages" + food stamps. Government is subsidizing Walmart by allowing them to pay less than a living wage and complementing the money with US tax payers dollars.

bradleyjg 13y ago
Food stamps are a fairly broad program -- one fifth of US households receive them. Certainly not all such households would starve to death without them, it's a politically palatable cash substitute.
- camus2 13y ago
  > Certainly not all such households would starve to death Yeah, let's them simply "starve" then, but not to death, hey ? , I cant believe people can write things like that.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Its so deeply worked into the farm bill every time and farm rules and subsidies, its basically a political nightmare to break out and change.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
If the government must give these people food stamps so they can live... They don't. Where I live, GDP/capita adjusting for PPP is less than what you'd make earning $8.25/hour at walmart working 20 hours/week with no govt benefits of any kind. There is no mass die-off. (Note: my numbers are adjusted for cost of living. So don't tell me that "it's cheaper here" - I'm taking that into account. Unlike the US poor, people here live in crowded apartments, take shared transport to work, and learn to survive without 24/7 water.) You are simply wrong. The government is subsidizing poor people's consumption, not walmart.

eloisant 13y ago

So how would you call a wage that's enough to cover living expenses?

protomyth 13y ago
A career job, just like it was in the old days.
- cdcarter 13y ago
  So you think working for a fast food restaurant that _does_ pay a living wage (like Dick's, in Seattle) while you work your way thorough college ought to be classified as a "Career Job"?
  - protomyth 13y ago
    No, I think you should consider yourself lucky that you found a employer willing to pay that amount for a part time gig. There was once two job tracks: part time pickup money and career. Starving out the part time work kills off a lot of opportunity since the higher the wage, the more competent an employer will require the employee to be.

protomyth 13y ago

I get tired of it because it is a fairly dumb concept to apply to every job. We once had jobs teenagers would get part time to get some spending money. The "living wage" proponents are trying to remove this entirely. We need to be talking about the next job, not a Wal-Mart shelf stacker. Our rush to destroy anything that isn't a college driven education is just coming back to bite us hard.