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.
Why should they be beholden to pay more than they need to for labor because someone else has decided to give money away? If you feel that the taxpayer is "subsidizing" these companies, wouldn't the correct response be to end the subsidy?
The taxpayer is absolutely subsidizing the companies. People think that these corporations are great in that they’re creating jobs, but the jobs that they create are actually costing the taxpayers money. I don’t think ending the subsidies is the answer because those employees still need to eat... but I also don’t think that clapping your hands over your ears and saying, “that’s not true!” is the answer, either.
The taxpayer is absolutely subsidizing the companies. People think that these corporations are great in that they’re creating jobs, but the jobs that they create are actually costing the taxpayers money. I don’t think ending the subsidies is the answer because those employees still need to eat... but I also don’t think that clapping your hands over your ears and saying, “that’s not true!” is the answer, either.
You're just wrong. The jobs are not costing the taxpayer money, they are reducing the subsidy and saving the taxpayer money. Nobody is getting a greater subsidy with one of these jobs than without, all else equal. Nor is the company the party setting the rules or granting the subsidy.
It's like this. You want your lawn mowed. You're willing to pay $20 to someone. Now maybe it's a big yard and nobody wants to do it for $20. In that case, you can pay more, do it yourself, or let it go undone. But if someone agrees, your only concern is to pay the money agreed and get the service desired. It isn't your responsibility or even your business if the person is a college kid who has no expenses and is doing it for drinking money or if the person is a father of four supporting a family. And nobody has any rights to lambast you because the amount is less than what the latter needs.
Think long and hard about putting this on the backs of the company. You may not like the unintended consequences. One way for a company to not have it's workers receive subsidies is to not hire workers who would qualify for a subsidy. Just hire those who have no dependents (i.e. no kids), preferably those who are someone else's dependent.
The taxpayer is absolutely subsidizing the companies. People think that these corporations are great in that they’re creating jobs, but the jobs that they create are actually costing the taxpayers money. I don’t think ending the subsidies is the answer because those employees still need to eat... but I also don’t think that clapping your hands over your ears and saying, “that’s not true!” is the answer, either.
If those employees "still need to eat", why aren't you out there taking care of that desperate need?
Oh, yeah, not your job... it's only yours to point to someone else and say, "I see a problem, you have to go fix it!"
Why aren't you running a business and paying a "fair living wage" to all of your employees? Shouldn't you be acting to solve the problem? You aren't greedy and heartless, are you?
If those employees "still need to eat", why aren't you out there taking care of that desperate need?
Oh, yeah, not your job... it's only yours to point to someone else and say, "I see a problem, you have to go fix it!"
Why aren't you running a business and paying a "fair living wage" to all of your employees? Shouldn't you be acting to solve the problem? You aren't greedy and heartless, are you?
It's the "somebody, do something!" syndrome. I was walking the beach the other day and saw a kid struggling in the water. I yelled for somebody to do something many times. I heard others yelling the same thing. The kid drowned. I'm so angry, somebody needs to pay for this. How can they live with themselves?
It's the "somebody, do something!" syndrome. I was walking the beach the other day and saw a kid struggling in the water. I yelled for somebody to do something many times. I heard others yelling the same thing. The kid drowned. I'm so angry, somebody needs to pay for this. How can they live with themselves?
Clearly, more must be done! There should be a lifeguard every 100 yards on every beach at all times! If we can save just one child, any cost is worth it!
Why do you think this? If the employees of Walmart and Disney qualify for welfare/food stamps/Medicaid (and they do!), then that means those large corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers. Rather than paying a living wage, they know that the government will make up the difference
Then I guess we can get rid of welfare, food stamps and medicaid and then those evil companies wouldn't be subsidized, come to their senses, make up the difference and give them a huge raise!!
Why do you think this? If the employees of Walmart and Disney qualify for welfare/food stamps/Medicaid (and they do!), then that means those large corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers.
No, it clearly means that those employees chose to have more kids than they could support and accepted a job that doesn't cover their expenses. I'll bet those employees qualified and received aid *before* they came to Walmart and Disney.
This is not news. My spouse roomed with (a) Cinderella over thirty years ago and the princess had to work other jobs just to cover her part of the rent. Most of the hourly 'face' cast members invariably must be doing it for more than just the money - and that has been the case for decades.
Working at Disneyland for the majority of workers it should be a part time job. Those jobs aren’t designed to be a career. That’s the problem. People get in a position and then that’s it. This is what they do. No drive to do more. It’s nobodys fault that they don’t make enough because they chose a dead end job and had absolutely no drive to better themselves.
Clearly, more must be done! There should be a lifeguard every 100 yards on every beach at all times! If we can save just one child, any cost is worth it!
", any cost (paid, managed and operationally functioned by someone else) is with it!"
and despite there being no value add to the lifeguards sitting on deserted beaches...they should still be paid a "Living Wage"
It's amazing how much surplus some believe is out there. The biggest grabbers of wealth don't realize people get paid money to keep it away from them...but if that's their sole skill, then it should be easy competition.
I'll bet half the complainers couldn't differentiate revenue, income and cash in their minds.
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.
