|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them.
|
I'd still like to hear what you're family and relatives are paying for food on a per person basis soul.
|
On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:22 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more.
I never said get rid of foodstamps. I am saying that without foodstamps, Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages and the burden of feeding Walmart employees would be taken away from the government and placed on Walmart which is where it belongs.
Force Walmart to pay higher wages and you will reduce the need for foodstamps. Without foodstamps walmart would NOT be forced to pay more for work. That's what the bulk of the evidence tells us. All you'd be doing is making people poorer. If you force walmart to pay substantially more, you start to get into the downside of a higher minimum wage. You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve. What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it. Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job  I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses.
Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy?
I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar.
|
On April 18 2014 11:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Are the liberals here also going to argue that nationalized healthcare is a business subsidy? That the government paying for healthcare pushes down wages?
It just changes where the 'wages' come from.
The simplified version of this argument would read something like: The claim is that it would be more efficient for Walmart to increase it's wages so that fewer employees qualified for assistance rather than pay them less and then forfeit the money to the government to co-mingle it with average peoples taxes to give back to Walmart's employees in the form of SNAP and Healthcare provided by the government.
When it's put like that it makes it hard to understand why conservatives wouldn't be pushing Walmart to do just that so that people aren't animated to create a law to mandate it which may cause more problems than it solves.
It's clear that individuals are doing whatever it takes to make a living wage. While I agree that an artificially high minimum wage can favor some and hurt others people are not going to stand for the wages they are currently making.
So given a choice between a poorly constructed legislative wage raise and Walmart voluntarily paying it's employees more which would conservatives want them to choose?
|
wow, $7 - $10? and with making stuff? here in Massachusetts I run around $6 a day, and I'm not trying that hard, I could easily get it down to $4 a day while being healthy, and $2-3 with a passable but less optimal diet. and by always using the best supermarkets.
are prices high where you live? is it a canadian thing? are there not enough nearby supermarkets?
are you factoring in some other costs to the cooking, like the cost of the heat or something or amortizing equipment costs?
|
On April 18 2014 11:56 SnipedSoul wrote:
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them.
That sounds like how a business subsidy is supposed to work ...
On April 18 2014 11:57 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:22 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more.
I never said get rid of foodstamps. I am saying that without foodstamps, Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages and the burden of feeding Walmart employees would be taken away from the government and placed on Walmart which is where it belongs.
Force Walmart to pay higher wages and you will reduce the need for foodstamps. Without foodstamps walmart would NOT be forced to pay more for work. That's what the bulk of the evidence tells us. All you'd be doing is making people poorer. If you force walmart to pay substantially more, you start to get into the downside of a higher minimum wage. You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve. What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it. Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses. Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy? I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar.
If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death.
There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross".
|
On April 18 2014 12:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:56 SnipedSoul wrote:
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them. That sounds like how a business subsidy is supposed to work ... Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:57 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:22 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more.
I never said get rid of foodstamps. I am saying that without foodstamps, Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages and the burden of feeding Walmart employees would be taken away from the government and placed on Walmart which is where it belongs.
Force Walmart to pay higher wages and you will reduce the need for foodstamps. Without foodstamps walmart would NOT be forced to pay more for work. That's what the bulk of the evidence tells us. All you'd be doing is making people poorer. If you force walmart to pay substantially more, you start to get into the downside of a higher minimum wage. You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve. What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it. Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses. Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy? I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar. If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death. There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross".
Sounds like you are using neoclassical economics to arrive at those conclusions? As if Neoclassical economics was a proven science? Your claims are tenuous at best.
|
On April 18 2014 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Are the liberals here also going to argue that nationalized healthcare is a business subsidy? That the government paying for healthcare pushes down wages? It just changes where the 'wages' come from. The simplified version of this argument would read something like: The claim is that it would be more efficient for Walmart to increase it's wages so that fewer employees qualified for assistance rather than pay them less and then forfeit the money to the government to co-mingle it with average peoples taxes to give back to Walmart's employees in the form of SNAP and Healthcare provided by the government. When it's put like that it makes it hard to understand why conservatives wouldn't be pushing Walmart to do just that so that people aren't animated to create a law to mandate it which may cause more problems than it solves. It's clear that individuals are doing whatever it takes to make a living wage. While I agree that an artificially high minimum wage can favor some and hurt others people are not going to stand for the wages they are currently making. So given a choice between a poorly constructed legislative wage raise and Walmart voluntarily paying it's employees more which would conservatives want them to choose?
Having Walmart voluntarily do it would be awkward. They'd have to pay based upon employee need. IDK if that would even stand legally and it would be a huge departure from social / business norms.
|
On April 18 2014 12:11 zlefin wrote:
wow, $7 - $10? and with making stuff? here in Massachusetts I run around $6 a day, and I'm not trying that hard, I could easily get it down to $4 a day while being healthy, and $2-3 with a passable but less optimal diet. and by always using the best supermarkets.
are prices high where you live? is it a canadian thing? are there not enough nearby supermarkets?
are you factoring in some other costs to the cooking, like the cost of the heat or something or amortizing equipment costs?
Food is more expensive here and I do like to eat more than rice and beans.
We import a lot of food or have to grow it in greenhouses. There is a short period in the summer where things are cheap, but we have 6 month long winters, so the price of food is generally high.
On April 18 2014 12:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death.
There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross".
I do find it disgusting that a person working a full time job cannot provide for their family without government assistance while huge companies continue breaking profit records.
|
On April 18 2014 12:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Are the liberals here also going to argue that nationalized healthcare is a business subsidy? That the government paying for healthcare pushes down wages? It just changes where the 'wages' come from. The simplified version of this argument would read something like: The claim is that it would be more efficient for Walmart to increase it's wages so that fewer employees qualified for assistance rather than pay them less and then forfeit the money to the government to co-mingle it with average peoples taxes to give back to Walmart's employees in the form of SNAP and Healthcare provided by the government. When it's put like that it makes it hard to understand why conservatives wouldn't be pushing Walmart to do just that so that people aren't animated to create a law to mandate it which may cause more problems than it solves. It's clear that individuals are doing whatever it takes to make a living wage. While I agree that an artificially high minimum wage can favor some and hurt others people are not going to stand for the wages they are currently making. So given a choice between a poorly constructed legislative wage raise and Walmart voluntarily paying it's employees more which would conservatives want them to choose? Having Walmart voluntarily do it would be awkward. They'd have to pay based upon employee need. IDK if that would even stand legally and it would be a huge departure from social / business norms.
That's not what I asked. It wouldn't be any more complicated than how they already calculate their wages. I have no idea what your talking about when you mention the 'legality' so I'd need clarification on what you meant by that....
As for a departure from norms my first reaction is 'So what!?' my second reaction is 'Good!' there is plenty wrong with social/business norms and they could use the change. My third reaction is 'so what about my question?
'
Would you as a conservative (I think you have identified yourself as this[and feel free to speak for the larger movement]) rather see Walmart faced with a law increasing the minimum wage (which by your description would not help the issue), Or would you like to see Walmart move towards their employees expectations of higher wages voluntarily?
|
On April 18 2014 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:56 SnipedSoul wrote:
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them. That sounds like how a business subsidy is supposed to work ... On April 18 2014 11:57 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:22 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more.
I never said get rid of foodstamps. I am saying that without foodstamps, Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages and the burden of feeding Walmart employees would be taken away from the government and placed on Walmart which is where it belongs.
Force Walmart to pay higher wages and you will reduce the need for foodstamps. Without foodstamps walmart would NOT be forced to pay more for work. That's what the bulk of the evidence tells us. All you'd be doing is making people poorer. If you force walmart to pay substantially more, you start to get into the downside of a higher minimum wage. You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve. What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it. Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses. Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy? I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar. If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death. There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross". Sounds like you are using neoclassical economics to arrive at those conclusions? As if Neoclassical economics was a proven science? Your claims are tenuous at best.
No, I'm not using neoclassical economics to arrive at my conclusions. There's little evidence that EITC and the like depress wages. There's a lot of evidence that these subsides increase incomes.
Sounds like working as intended. If they weren't working as intended you'd see more evidence of wages being depressed and less evidence of incomes going up.
|
On April 18 2014 12:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 12:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:56 SnipedSoul wrote:
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them. That sounds like how a business subsidy is supposed to work ... On April 18 2014 11:57 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:22 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more.
I never said get rid of foodstamps. I am saying that without foodstamps, Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages and the burden of feeding Walmart employees would be taken away from the government and placed on Walmart which is where it belongs.
Force Walmart to pay higher wages and you will reduce the need for foodstamps. Without foodstamps walmart would NOT be forced to pay more for work. That's what the bulk of the evidence tells us. All you'd be doing is making people poorer. If you force walmart to pay substantially more, you start to get into the downside of a higher minimum wage. You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve. What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it. Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses. Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy? I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar. If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death. There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross". Sounds like you are using neoclassical economics to arrive at those conclusions? As if Neoclassical economics was a proven science? Your claims are tenuous at best. No, I'm not using neoclassical economics to arrive at my conclusions. There's little evidence that EITC and the like depress wages. There's a lot of evidence that these subsides increase incomes. Sounds like working as intended. If they weren't working as intended you'd see more evidence of wages being depressed and less evidence of incomes going up.
So why does that increased income have to come from taxpayers and not employers?
|
On April 18 2014 12:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Are the liberals here also going to argue that nationalized healthcare is a business subsidy? That the government paying for healthcare pushes down wages? It just changes where the 'wages' come from. The simplified version of this argument would read something like: The claim is that it would be more efficient for Walmart to increase it's wages so that fewer employees qualified for assistance rather than pay them less and then forfeit the money to the government to co-mingle it with average peoples taxes to give back to Walmart's employees in the form of SNAP and Healthcare provided by the government. When it's put like that it makes it hard to understand why conservatives wouldn't be pushing Walmart to do just that so that people aren't animated to create a law to mandate it which may cause more problems than it solves. It's clear that individuals are doing whatever it takes to make a living wage. While I agree that an artificially high minimum wage can favor some and hurt others people are not going to stand for the wages they are currently making. So given a choice between a poorly constructed legislative wage raise and Walmart voluntarily paying it's employees more which would conservatives want them to choose? Having Walmart voluntarily do it would be awkward. They'd have to pay based upon employee need. IDK if that would even stand legally and it would be a huge departure from social / business norms. That's not what I asked. It wouldn't be any more complicated than how they already calculate their wages. I have no idea what your talking about when you mention the 'legality' so I'd need clarification on what you meant by that.... As for a departure from norms my first reaction is 'So what!?' my second reaction is 'Good!' there is plenty wrong with social/business norms and they could use the change. My third reaction is 'so what about my question? ' Would you as a conservative (I think you have identified yourself as this[and feel free to speak for the larger movement]) rather see Walmart faced with a law increasing the minimum wage (which by your description would not help the issue), Or would you like to see Walmart move towards their employees expectations of higher wages voluntarily?
I'd rather see EITC and the like expanded.
As for the legality issue, you'd be engaging in pay discrimination.
|
Canada11607 Posts
I don't know why people are attacking EITC, which looks rather like a graduated income tax or food stamps and Johnny is the one defending it. I really don't think that's a problem. If there are too many people requiring low income subsidies, the subsidies are an effect not a cause.
Getting rid of safety nets doesn't reduce the probability of someone falling. It just hurts more when they do.
|
On April 18 2014 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:03 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart themselves have admitted that their business model relies on their employees getting government assistance Source? Edit: and make sure your source says what you just claimed. Edit 2: For the record I find it morally reprehensible that people on this thread are putting their hatred of corporations ahead of the well-being of the poor.
Edit: Well shit everyone is commenting in this thread. I'm like 2 pages behind.
|
On April 18 2014 12:38 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 12:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:56 SnipedSoul wrote:
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them. That sounds like how a business subsidy is supposed to work ... On April 18 2014 11:57 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Without foodstamps walmart would NOT be forced to pay more for work. That's what the bulk of the evidence tells us. All you'd be doing is making people poorer.
If you force walmart to pay substantially more, you start to get into the downside of a higher minimum wage. You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve. What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it. Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses. Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy? I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar. If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death. There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross". Sounds like you are using neoclassical economics to arrive at those conclusions? As if Neoclassical economics was a proven science? Your claims are tenuous at best. No, I'm not using neoclassical economics to arrive at my conclusions. There's little evidence that EITC and the like depress wages. There's a lot of evidence that these subsides increase incomes. Sounds like working as intended. If they weren't working as intended you'd see more evidence of wages being depressed and less evidence of incomes going up. So why does that increased income have to come from taxpayers and not employers?
Because it works better overall. At least I think so
|
On April 18 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 10:03 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart themselves have admitted that their business model relies on their employees getting government assistance Source? Edit: and make sure your source says what you just claimed. Edit 2: For the record I find it morally reprehensible that people on this thread are putting their hatred of corporations ahead of the well-being of the poor. Edit: Well shit everyone is commenting in this thread. I'm like 2 pages behind.
Wasn't trolling so much as mocking liberals for attacking aid to the poor
|
You don't see liberals continually proposing cuts to unemployment and other aid to the poor. It's Republicans that are doing it. You also don't see liberals saying abolish the minimum wage so that we can pay people what they're worth (sub $7.25 an hour). That's Republicans as well.
Taking money from the middle class to give to the poor is dumb when non-financial US companies are sitting on literally trillions of dollars in cash
On April 18 2014 12:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:38 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 12:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 12:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 12:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:56 SnipedSoul wrote:
It's actually the converse. Nationalized healthcare would help businesses be more competitive by removing the significant financial burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Those funds would then be available for additional investment, higher wages, or whatever else the business wants to do with them. That sounds like how a business subsidy is supposed to work ... On April 18 2014 11:57 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:40 SnipedSoul wrote:
[quote]
You said that without foodstamps people would starve. Many Walmart employees are on foodstamps. If foodstamps weren't around, then Walmart would be forced to pay more or their employees would starve.
What evidence? Walmart in my country is forced to pay at least $10.00 per hour and people here are no poorer because of it.
Crap, double post! The evidence that EITC and other subsides go to businesses in the form of lower wages is scarce. Conversely evidence that EITC and the like reduce poverty are well documented. If you were correct, this wouldn't be the case. EITC and SNAP wouldn't help anyone since the added benefit would just get shifted to the employer. The negative impacts of a higher minimum wage are controversial but well documented. The higher the minimum wage goes, the more likely it is to reduce employment. No one seriously thinks you can raise the minimum wage to $30 and have no one lose their job I know that those programs help reduce poverty. The problem is that congress keeps cutting them without forcing employers to make up the difference. I never said raise minimum wage to $30 which would be a 4x increase. I said raise it to $10 which would be a 33% increase and be more in line with what the minimum wage would be if it were tied to inflation. If they reduce poverty than they are not subsidies to businesses. Taxpayer money is making up for a shortfall in wages. Government pays the bill instead of a business. How is that not a subsidy? I live alone and pay between $7 and $10 a day for food and that's with cooking everything myself and making it from scratch. The rest of my family is similar. If taxpayer money was making up for a shortfall in wages, than removing the money and doing nothing else would leave the worker no better or worse off. EITIC and the like do not depress the market price for labor. Nor are we talking about a subsistence level of income where less income means death. There's no natural force like starvation that demands wages be higher. Nor is there a market need demanding higher wages. In other words, there's no shortfall in an economic sense. It's only a shortfall because you think a wage lower than that is "gross". Sounds like you are using neoclassical economics to arrive at those conclusions? As if Neoclassical economics was a proven science? Your claims are tenuous at best. No, I'm not using neoclassical economics to arrive at my conclusions. There's little evidence that EITC and the like depress wages. There's a lot of evidence that these subsides increase incomes. Sounds like working as intended. If they weren't working as intended you'd see more evidence of wages being depressed and less evidence of incomes going up. So why does that increased income have to come from taxpayers and not employers? Because it works better overall. At least I think so
Do you have a reason why you think that?
|
On April 18 2014 12:47 SnipedSoul wrote:You don't see liberals continually proposing cuts to unemployment and other aid to the poor. It's Republicans that are doing it. You also don't see liberals saying abolish the minimum wage so that we can pay people what they're worth (sub $7.25 an hour). That's Republicans as well. Taking money from the middle class to give to the poor is dumb when non-financial companies are sitting on literally trillions of dollars in cash
Republicans were behind the EITC, one of the best anit-poverty tools out there and currently under attack by liberals. Unemployment cuts are derpy issue - it's the temporary extended benefits that were cut.
Cash on balance sheets is a red herring.
|
Soul, you're in Canada, why do you care so much about us politics?
on the general topic, the only remaining thing I have to add is the usual congress sucks; get competent people in and fix all this stuff, and fix the unemployment problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
