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.
In general, does a company and/or the owner of a company that pays their employee a wage where they still qualify for welfare programs bear a greater responsibility to maintaining the social safety net than other citizens?
In general, does a company and/or the owner of a company that pays their employee a wage where they still qualify for welfare programs bear a greater responsibility to maintaining the social safety net than other citizens?
I heard stories of women having to ride in a bus to a mall north of Detroit just so they could maintain a job that welfare made them maintain in order to continue to receive benefits.
Two hours on the bus, 8 hours at work, then a two hour drive home. So 12 hour days, every day, and their kids were home from school with no parental supervision.
Something has got to give somewhere. Maybe they should have taken full advantage of birth control, but maybe their parents didn't teach them proper use of contraception.
Actually that was one of the company's that came to mind when I thought about this. What's your opinion on who owes more into that safety net?
Nobody "owes more" based on the arbitrary fact that people may work for them. By taking on an employee, you do not take on responsibility for that employee's entire financial situation. You agree upon a wage, and you pay it.
Plus as I mentioned last time this came up, Wal-Mart pays a ton of money in taxes. They're already paying for the safety net on that end.
Nobody "owes more" based on the arbitrary fact that people may work for them. By taking on an employee, you do not take on responsibility for that employee's entire financial situation. You agree upon a wage, and you pay it.
Plus as I mentioned last time this came up, Wal-Mart pays a ton of money in taxes. They're already paying for the safety net on that end.
It's not an arbitrary connection b/c as an employer, they (no just Walmart) are directly responsible for its employee not making enough to live independently.
It's not an arbitrary connection b/c as an employer, they (no just Walmart) are directly responsible for its employee not making enough to live independently.
Some employers can't afford to pay someone enough to live independently. Should they simply shut their doors?
Farm workers, for instance, aren't paid what many people would consider a livable wage. Waitresses work for tips, they don't even get paid minimum wage.
Life is complicated, and so is capitalism. We can't make it fair for everyone outright. But I don't find it wrong to expect people who are getting government assistance to work for some of their income.
It's not an arbitrary connection b/c as an employer, they (no just Walmart) are directly responsible for its employee not making enough to live independently.
That's some twisted logic right there. They aren't kids, and Wal-Mart is not their parent, is is a private entity they have chosen to do business with. You can not fault Wal-Mart for the disparity of leverage in a voluntary contract.
Following that line of thought, I could blame pretty much anyone I wanted, anyone they had ever done business with, for their inability to live independently.
That's some twisted logic right there. They aren't kids, and Wal-Mart is not their parent, is is a private entity they have chosen to do business with. You can not fault Wal-Mart for the disparity of leverage in a voluntary contract.
Following that line of thought, I could blame pretty much anyone I wanted, anyone they had ever done business with, for their inability to live independently.
I think most folks problem with wal-mart is that they are making record profits, doing well, and are still paying their employees less then would be standard for other department stores.
But it is a free country, and their stuff is really cheap. Most Americans, and people in general, don't care where their goods come from, or how much the workers were paid to produce it. Out of sight, out of mind.
I think most folks problem with wal-mart is that they are making record profits, doing well, and are still paying their employees less then would be standard for other department stores.
Which is why Wal-Mart should pay their share of taxes, but you can argue that without the asserting that since Wal-Mart offers you an arrangement in which they pay you $X, they now somehow owe you $X + $Y. It's a fundamentally flawed premise which throws the entire discussion off course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
But it is a free country, and their stuff is really cheap. Most Americans, and people in general, don't care where their goods come from, or how much the workers were paid to produce it. Out of sight, out of mind.
Oh we care, but in the inverse, we want the maximum amount of cheap plastic crap and electronics at the lowest prices possible. But we also want high wages of course.
Go figure.
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.
