Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Employers that pay low wages basically receive corporate welfare as many of their employees end up various dole programs to get by.
Walmart for example, just think about how many of their bottom line comes from food stamps purchases. And don't forget about their employees that are on food stamps.
No, they don't.
The only way this could happen is if the employer was paying BELOW market wages (how is this even possible?) and is somehow able to compel government to make up the difference. If market wage for the job is question is $8.50/hour, and the employer is in fact paying $8.50/hour, there is NO corporate welfare (even if the employee in question is able to qualify for government benefits).
When I started work in the late 70s, my minimum wage job afforded me a room in a shared house, bus fare, scant groceries, but not to malnourishment, and a few dollars left over for "discretionary."
To reach the same standard today, adjusted for inflation, the minimum would have to be something like $14.85.
I'm so glad people think full time workers should starve and go homeless! (Sarcasm)
Were on strike today, so go **** yourself.
Make your own burger.
I'm with you. First I worked only for pocket money. clothes mainly. But then I moved out into shared apartment. It was not fancy. I relied on the food we were allowed to take home, but I could live on it.
On the other hand people do the same thing now. Where I live, at least. They share apartment or are married/with a partner to split expenses. Share a car, that sort of thing.
The only way this could happen is if the employer was paying BELOW market wages (how is this even possible?) and is somehow able to compel government to make up the difference. If market wage for the job is question is $8.50/hour, and the employer is in fact paying $8.50/hour, there is NO corporate welfare (even if the employee in question is able to qualify for government benefits).
This is not true. Retail stores alone costs taxpayers literally billions a year for their health care, food stamps, etc so they don't have to pay benefits and good wages. I work in nursing homes as a therapist, and many of the CNA's, single moms who work their butts off full time, sign up for double shifts and shifts on their day off, still qualify and depend on government assistance for heating bills, food, free breakfast programs and other things that anyone who works full time should be able to afford. These nursing homes make money hand over fist but they only care about stockholders and its' employees and the residents who pay the price...then I see other non-rich people come here and defend them non-stop, and I simply don't get it. They are not paying because they don't want to, and we taxpayers pick up the slack and pay their tab while they get fatter and fatter.
[CENTER]Save[/CENTER]
This is not true. Retail stores alone costs taxpayers literally billions a year for their health care, food stamps, etc so they don't have to pay benefits and good wages. I work in nursing homes as a therapist, and many of the CNA's, single moms who work their butts off full time, sign up for double shifts and shifts on their day off, still qualify and depend on government assistance for heating bills, food, free breakfast programs and other things that anyone who works full time should be able to afford. These nursing homes make money hand over fist but they only care about stockholders and its' employees and the residents who pay the price...then I see other non-rich people come here and defend them non-stop, and I simply don't get it. They are not paying because they don't want to, and we taxpayers pick up the slack and pay their tab while they get fatter and fatter.
[CENTER]Save[/CENTER]
The post that I responded to claimed that paying low wages meant that the employers were receiving corporate welfare (in the form of subsidized labor). Here is my post:
Quote:
The only way this could happen is if the employer was paying BELOW market wages (how is this even possible?) and is somehow able to compel government to make up the difference. If market wage for the job is question is $8.50/hour, and the employer is in fact paying $8.50/hour, there is NO corporate welfare
If market wage is 8.50, and I in fact pay 8.50, please explain how my labor cost has been subsidized.
(I strongly suggest that you think through your response very carefully, as this is an unwinnable argument for you. Paying market wages is prima facie evidence that the wages haven't been subsidized.)
This is not true. Retail stores alone costs taxpayers literally billions a year for their health care, food stamps, etc so they don't have to pay benefits and good wages.
This is pure nonsense. Walmart has a job that needs to be done and they offer a certain wage to do it. It is none of their business, much less responsibility, what the employee does with their paycheck or how they choose to live. That person might be living with their parents and using the paycheck to buy video games or they might be living on their own supporting 8 kids. Walmart is no more responsible for the financial situation of the person who accepts their job than they are for the person who doesn't accept it. Walmart didn't make the young woman have 8 kids and drop out of school.
If a single mom is working at Walmart and getting welfare, how much more welfare would she be getting if she didn't get that Walmart job and was unemployed? From that perspective, Walmart is actually reducing the burden on taxpayers.
If market wage is 8.50, and I in fact pay 8.50, please explain how my labor cost has been subsidized. (I strongly suggest that you think through your response very carefully, as this is an unwinnable argument for you. Paying market wages is prima facie evidence that the wages haven't been subsidized.)
If a monopsony exists, i.e. Walmart is the only employer of low wage employees in an area, then what Walmart offers becomes the 'market wage'. It is only in an environment where there are multiple employers competing for a limited number of employees that a 'market wage' can be achieved organically.
If a monopsony exists, i.e. Walmart is the only employer of low wage employees in an area, then what Walmart offers becomes the 'market wage'. It is only in an environment where there are multiple employers competing for a limited number of employees that a 'market wage' can be achieved organically.
Surely you understand that Wal-Mart isn't a monopsony for low-cost labor. Or perhaps you don't understand that. . .
Surely you understand that Wal-Mart isn't a monopsony for low-cost labor. Or perhaps you don't understand that. . .
Not in large urban areas, of course not. But there is a proven Walmart monopsony effect in the rural south and midwest. And they have a large monopsony effect on suppliers which is probably a discussion better left for another time.
Not to mention that Reagan and every president after him got the outsource ball rolling. But some Conservatives don't want to talk about that.
This OP's agenda is transparent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
