Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

Not sure if this is the right thread, but something I've been chewing on lately:

There's this popular left meme now about how taxpayers "subsidize" Wal-Mart workers, enabling Wal-Mart to pay less. The argument, of course, is that this demonstrates that Wal-Mart should be paying more, which it should. But at the same time, doesn't this also imply that government benefits are some kind of "enabler" for low pay? Aren't we undercutting ourselves with this argument? Or what is the logical conclusion of it?

Isn't Walmart going to pay low salaries whether or not their employees get SNAP benefits? Or does Walmart rely on the purchases of employees getting SNAP benefits to such a degree, that they will increase their salaries a tad? Also I don't see conservatives ever concerned really about low wages (people need to work harder, get smarter on their own blah blah blah) , so taking away the "enabler" might not cause anyone to behave differently?

In response to Dick Cheney comments about the military, someone noted how many entry-level military folks are on SNAP benefits.

Isn't Walmart going to pay low salaries whether or not their employees get SNAP benefits? Or does Walmart rely on the purchases of employees getting SNAP benefits to such a degree, that they will increase their salaries a tad?

Well that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is the idea behind that meme supposed to be that Wal-Mart is able to pay lower salaries because of govt benefits? Because that implies that they'd have to pay higher salaries if there were no government benefits. I don't think they could get away with paying too little to keep their employees alive/fed/clothed/sheltered.

Well if there were no gov't benefits, it would stand to reason that there likely also be no gov't employment regulations. Wally World would be well-positioned in what would be a race to the bottom wage-wise.

I don't think they could get away with paying too little to keep their employees alive/fed/clothed/sheltered.

Maybe its out there and I haven't read it (or I did and forgot it) , but would like to see the stats on the percentage of Walmart employees in this situation, and how much it affects their bottom line. I think I'm less trusting than you are on this.

What, the percentage of Wal-Mart employees that are literally starving and/or homeless?

That secret society thing is jaw-dropping.

I don't think they could get away with paying too little to keep their employees alive/fed/clothed/sheltered.

Seriously??? They DO pay too little for those things, even WITH the available supports, WHICH btw don't cover real-world needs to begin with!

What percentage of Walmart employees are getting SNAP benefits?

Their bottom-line meant Walmart. Sam and family are insanely rich

What percentage of Walmart employees are getting SNAP benefits?

Right, a large percentage, but that's the whole point I'm trying to make. I don't understand the rhetorical point of this argument that SNAP and other government benefits are "subsidizing" low wages, because that sounds almost like an argument against the benefits.

I mean it seems like a confusing mixed message to me.

I see what you're saying -- and it's a fool's game to believe that Walmart and other low-wage employers would pay a nickel more if government assistance didn't exist -- but the argument I see generally isn't over that. It's over Walmart et al. paying so little on the one hand that their employees are forced to rely on government assistance; and on the other hand their CEOs and owners crying to Congress about their "high taxes" and the welfare state.

It's subsidizing a low wage business model

It's subsidizing a low wage business model

― anonanon, Friday, February 28, 2014 11:56 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Right, but that makes it sound like if you stopped subsidizing, the business model wouldn't work. Which is why the argument makes me a little uncomfortable. I support raising the minimum wage.

It's over Walmart et al. paying so little on the one hand that their employees are forced to rely on government assistance; and on the other hand their CEOs and owners crying to Congress about their "high taxes" and the welfare state.

This is a nice way of putting it, ty.

xp It is, but removing the "subsidy" will not change the business model.

xxp What he said. Both a higher minimum wage and a guaranteed minimum income.

On a different but related subject--

I've skimmed a couple articles lately on the Earned Income Tax Credit as a few conservatives are now pushing this as a better way to help the folks who they say do work and need help rather than increasing the minimum wage (which they insist largely helps middle and upper class high schoolers working after school, and not the working poor and middle class trying to survive). But its not clear enough conservatives want to expand the use of the credit. In fact, that Republican Dave Camp tax reform package reduces the amount of folks eligible for the EITC

walmart will pay low wages whether or not anyone is getting welfare because they can

Also the first day at work after you watch an orientation video they tell you to snoop on any of your fellow employees who start talking about unions. Or at least they did when I worked there when I was 18 (10+ years ago).

mixed myself up I agree gov is not an enabler bc walmart wouldnt raise pay if SNAP didn't exist

seems fair enough to raise the minimum wage in response to a large proportion of gainfully employed people having to rely on SNAP.

not necessarily a large proportion. let's say significant number of people.

allowing Walmart to employ people even full time without meeting their cost of living, with government forced to pick up the difference makes the current min wage law itself a subsidy (kinda analogizing to "tax expenditure" concept here)

raise the minimum wage

Yes. As soon as possible. This is would help millions of working poor, not just WalMart employees. I'd say $10/hr. should be the lowest amount even considered as proper compensation for any paid work of any description.

I question the logic in this guest editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/02/28/maybe-raising-the-minimum-wage-isnt-such-a-good-idea-after-all/

Wow, the number of elisions (e.g. not mentioning that Douglas Holtz-Eakin was the head economic advisor for the McCain campaign and heads some right wing think tank), omissions (a single unlinked Texas A&M study that contradicts nearly all other available research on the minimum wage) and bad-faith logical fallacies (it's not the best way so let's not use it at all/it doesn't help everyone so we shouldn't help anyone) in that article are staggering.

"Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, doesn’t think so. In fact, he doesn’t think the federal government should have a minimum wage at all."

I mean do you need to read any further

a single unlinked Texas A&M study

it's MOUNTING EVIDENCE, dude. totally mounting.

No minimum wage is a deeply randian opinion. So is eating babies.

I'd be down w questioning the value of the minimum wage if we weren't living in an age of all-time high corporate profits and stock markets. But we are.

how does this apply to amazon mechanical turk!

Right, but that makes it sound like if you stopped subsidizing, the business model wouldn't work. Which is why the argument makes me a little uncomfortable. I support raising the minimum wage.

It does seem plausible that without government benefits Walmart would be forced to pay slightly higher wages. Same probably goes for other big companies that rely on minimum wage labor (such as the fast food industry). But it's hard to say because reducing government benefits would have lots of indirect effects on demand and such. In any case, the way I see it, that's not an argument for reducing benefits, but rather for raising the minimum wage.

My life as a retail worker, written by a former political journalist.

After recently having one of those bougie "honey I don't know if we're saving enough for retirement" conversations, this was sobering to read:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/

Savings account?

"Six months of living expenses" is a good lol to all "middle-class" New Yorkers.

Financial advisors have a vested interest in convincing as many people as possible that "good financial management" requires meeting a variety of difficult to meet goals through strategies that are more complicated than people would construct on their own. Basically, the hordes of financial 'advisors' out there are peddling watered down, simple-minded versions of how the wealthy manage much larger trusts and estates. In order to make enough work for the ever-increasing numbers of these parasites, these strategies are being pushed at people ever further down the income scale. It is an industry and they sell fear, uncertainty and doubt. Don't buy it.

I think the six months' savings things makes a lot of sense if you have a family. Maybe less so if you're single and can easily move to a cheaper rental or crash on a friend's couch or whatever. I agree that a lot of other stuff financial planner types tell you is just ludicrous and beyond imagination, like the amount you're supposed to save for your kids college, the amount you're supposed to save for retirement, etc.

Just having a savings account with as much money as you can wangle into it doesn't require a financial advisor to figure out. Stating flatly that it should contain "six months of living expenses" is more confusing than enlightening.

Very few people can tell you what "one month of living expenses" amounts to. I happen to keep detailed records of what we spend each month, going back to 2008, and the amounts vary so widely I'd have to massage the numbers quite a bit to come up with a number that even vaguely fits "six months of living expenses". As advice, this sounds simple, but as soon as you seriously try to put it to use, it becomes very, very nebulous and more likely to inspire fretting than guide action.

By way of contrast, saying "six months of your rent or mortgage payments" would at least allow a person to quickly and easily calculate a number so they can see what the goal is.

I inherited "a little money" from my mom two years ago, i.e. six months of my rent, pretty much. And rather than keep that as my emergency fund, I'm going to Europe this year.

I hear there's an old saying, "see Naples and die". Have a good time.

xp IDK, it seems kind of intuitive to me that "six months of living expenses" means six months of the things you couldn't or wouldn't want to cut even in an emergency -- food, rent/mortgage, basic utilities, etc.

student loans - the new burden of failure

student loans - the price of growing up in america without family money

student loans = graduate groans!

student loan (interest) = yacht owner gas money!

http://www.fastcompany.com/3027355/pixel-and-dimed-on-not-getting-by-in-the-gig-economy

hahaha as soon as I got to the part with the Thomas Friedman quote I was like "say no more, I would like to sign up for your newsletter"

most terrifying part is buried way in

I'm essentially competing for every hour of my employment.

buried but kind of implied at other points I think. Chilling piece, yeah. Also dovetails nicely with an interview I listened to last night with Jennifer Silva
http://scholar.harvard.edu/jsilva

available here:

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S131121 (Nov 21)

more about the non-tech-savvy In This Economy but some of the themes overlap