Should government give welfare to low wage workers

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

I chose not to mention it because while an interesting summary of a study (note that the linked article ISN'T the study in question, but only a summary) that addresses the depression in wages attributable to Wal-Mart, it doesn't at all address the issue under discussion - whether taxpayers subsidize the labor costs of businesses such as Wal-Mart.

First, I don't claim that there is a "living wage" floor. You didn't get that from what I wrote.

Second, taxpayers absolutely foot the bill for any "safety net" benefits provided. I never said otherwise. What I DID say was that providing benefits doesn't result in Wal-Mart's labor cost being subsidized. The only way for their labor cost to be subsidized is if they are paying LESS than the market rate for no-skill labor. And there is NO Wal-Mart anywhere that pays less than market rate. In fact, in locations where Wal-Mart employees are making minimum wage, it's safe to say that they are being paid MORE than market rate.

Taxpayers will be paying something for Joe no-skill, up until the time that he earns more than the total amount of the societally determined safety net. The more Joe earns, the less cost there is to the taxpayers. But there is NO situation where the taxpayer is subsidizing Wal-Mart. Remember, every dollar that Wal-Mart pays to Joe represents a dollar that the taxpayer DOESN'T have to pay. Society should be grateful that places like Wal-Mart provide jobs for no-skill workers, as a dollar earned by those workers is a dollar saved by the taxpayer.

Thank you for a respectful response, but I think we are too far apart on this issue to ever find common ground- but I did enjoy the discussion

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by tinytrump

not nice - families are ripped apart by men that walk out-- stop -- and you friking know has NOTHING to to with her---

Doesn't happen out of the blue. Happens when there are problems of various sorts in the relationship. Under those circumstances, it's remarkably irresponsible to bear children.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why does it not surprise me that you would say that

Because it's true.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Reynard32

Open your eyes and ears. Externalization of costs is exactly what's happening. Because they hold all of the power in relevant labor markets, employers can cut wages for particularly undifferentiated workers to well below subsistence levels without adverse market effects, and the resulting subsistence deficit will then be financed by the taxpayer instead of by the officers and shareholders who reap the profit of it all. It's a bit like going out for beers with your buddies and then skipping out the back door before the check arrives.

Making a statement like that makes it pretty clear that you really don't understand how the labor market works.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Reynard32

Again, this is a distortion that happens only in labor markets where ALL OF THE POWER rests with employers.

Nothing distorted about it. It happens in ALL labor markets where no-skill workers bring almost nothing to the table, and are paid more than their worth by virtue of a minimum wage law.

This is a special case of a Malthusian NON-market that only operates toward the notion of slave wages. Many would expect outcomes to be quite different in a labor market that offered more of a level playing field -- say one that had powerful unions on the workers side. There it would be more common for the minimum wage to define a floor instead of some sort of bonus.

That you don't seem to understand that the minimum wage is absolutely a floor, makes this entire discussion with you pretty hilarious.

[Dean Trails]

Originally Posted by Lyndarn

BBM~~ This will my final response to you..I did work my BUTT off for over 45 years..and yes..I know full well what it takes to make ends meet...raised 2 boyz on my own..with a Vietnam vet husband who took NO responsibility..He's Dead now..and my boys are fine ( have 6 grands) working..paying bills and love me ..which according to you..I should be hated/despised and a leaper ..BUT from your comfy couch to call ME RUDE..Yikes... Bless your heart
As a HC provider ( frontline) I no doubt met many with your 'TUDE in my career".. and I get it..ROFLMBO
I'm retired..and did look after my family..tight belted it..and NOW am retired..as of 2014..and doing quite well..So take your snark and go walk just for a month in the shoes of those LESS fortunate..I have cared for such folks..and they only thing they want..is being treated humanely..NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS..
Verbal Degradations and BLAME is not at all becoming ..SALUTE!! It's attitude like your's that paint's what many sense about some!! Elitist..Opinionated..and Yep rather Rude.
I will pray for your soul Ms/Mr Trail You surely need all the prayer's going your way

It really is so funny. You project your 'snark' onto me. And, i am supposed to feel sorry for you? I was trying to have a discussion and you attack me? Are your discussions based on how many times you can debase someone's character?

Anyway, i am glad you will no longer respond to my posts as yours are a bit off-the-wall. Everyone is allowed their opinions without someone trying to tear them down personally. I have no doubt that things i said have arouse passions in you but, no reason to try and shut down my posts.

As i said, you know nothing about me and my struggles however, I won't post them to get 'points' or sympathy. Let's just say i began with a lot less than what the Federal Government hands out to the poor.

And yep i still think you are very rude.