Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?[W:1258]

[polgara]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

How so? Employers suddenly wouldn't need employees?

I think just the opposite might would happen. If wages were increased, people could afford to purchase more, and companies would sell more goods, and they would need to hire more workers.

If we are talking about a total increase of about $3.00 per hour, which is being phased in over a period of years, that amounts to only about $1.00 per hour increase each year. A boost in wages from $7.25/hr now to $8.25/hr next year is really going to make a difference in lifestyle change, and everyone is suddenly going to start shopping? C'mon. This will only aggravate the office people who have to do the paperwork involved.

The point in my hypothetical example of everyone making $25/hr to start when they are hired at WalMart was that prices for everything under the sun are also going to increase, including those items sold at WalMart. So yes, fewer employees are going to be needed because one employee might be expected to clerk in three different departments at the same time at WalMart due to a decrease in shoppers at the store. No company wants to pay people just for being present that day when all they do is stand around with nothing to do. It's already happening in nearly every retail store in the nation - why would WalMart be an
exception? I don't know the answer to this problem, but I'm fairly certain about the effects it's going to have. As I stated above, it's already happening at most retail stores across the nation.

 

[vesper]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Look I go to Walmart to pick up products because they are cheaper. Period. I live on a budget. I live within my means. No one is paying my way especially the government. I make every penny work for me. Why in the hell would I pick up a pound of coffee beans or a 4 pack of toilet paper at a mom and pop store that has such a high markup on them when I can stop at Wal-mart and get the same for much less? Why in the hell would I buy "made in the USA" by union workers who rape their employers over Cadillac benefits that end up costing me more for their products when I can go to a non-union company that can offer the same quality for less? I'm not into paying for Cadillac benefits for the minority and have it cost me dearly for the products and services they produce. That is why I haven't purchased a vehicle made in the U.S.A. in the last 17 years. When the unions stop negotiating for the sun, moon and stars and start coming back to reality like those unions in Japan and elsewhere, all those who work under a union contract whether it be healthcare, automotive or anything else, can stick it where the sun don't shine. Everywhere there is a union, there are higher prices to contend with.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Everybody who works for a living should be able to earn a living.

Right. EARN a living. That is the key. And those who aren't earning as much as they want or need should expect to have to up their game, learn new skills, acquire better references, prove they are capable of earning a better salary. That is the way it was once done. Some here seem to have lost sight of what EARNING actually is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Prices wouldn't have to be much higher at all. For every man hour of labor, Walmart sells hundreds of dollars worth of goods. Prices would likely have to increase no more than a couple or three of percent to increase lower wage employees incomes by 50%. Unfortunately, such a pay increase would do little to increase the standard of living of walmart employees as many of them would lose their means tested government benefits if they made more.

I've actually had job applicants to tell me that they couldn't work more than X hours a week or that they had to be paid under the table because if their income was too high they would lose their disability or foodstamps or child support or whatever.

We can certainly have a discussion over how much wages affect consumer prices. But for sure, no employers will stay in business long if they pay out more in labor than that labor earns in profits for the employer.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

theme of thread...transfer from A to B using the government as the instrument

 

[joG]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

The employees would not be able to live and survive off Walmart wages if not for the welfare they receive, that would mean fewer people willing to work there, though maybe they could come up with some Foxconn inspired employee housing.

If the job is not worth more, why should anyone pay more to have it done? If you want the people to have more money, then it is up to you. Don't make other people pay for what you like. In this case that means taxpayer money.

 

[Winchester]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

theme of thread...transfer from A to B using the government as the instrument

You're deluded if you think A hasn't used the government as an instrument to transfer from B. A's actually much much better at it than B ever will be.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

You're deluded if you think A hasn't used the government as an instrument to transfer from B. A's actually much much better at it than B ever will be.

the way I addressed it in this thread, means the people who get their subsidies from government [transfer]

you mean in the sense of everyone who is not part of [A]............ not the same

 

[Conservative]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

the way I addressed it in this thread, means the people who get their subsidies from government [transfer]

you mean in the sense of everyone who is not part of [A]............ not the same

What far too many don't seem to understand or refuse to acknowledge is that Govt. doesn't have any money unless printing it or given to it by the people who actually pay taxes. Taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non taxpayers is indeed transfer of wealth from one group to another.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Yes you would. Because Walmart et al would not be able to attract as many customers with the much higher prices they would have to charge--and that hurts people who NEED those affordable prices for products they have to have. And with fewer customers or more employees who simply are incapable of earning the higher wages, a lot of people would be laid off and have no jobs at all. And those would not have the resources to spend at other businesses who would likely have to lay off people too. But by golly the leftist do gooders would feel righteous wouldn't they. They made Walmart do the 'right thing' and the consequences be damned.

Right, so middle class people have to subsidies Walmart workers so poor people can buy cheap crap? I think that model is bad for America.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Right, so middle class people have to subsidies Walmart workers so poor people can buy cheap crap? I think that model is bad for America.

Exactly. Subsidizing low paying employers just to keep prices low doesn't even make any sense. there is no net economic gain there. The extra that we pay in taxes offsets any savings that we have in prices. taxes. essentially, we are taxing the middle class to subsidize walmart so that walmart can charge the middle class less.

It would be much more simple to end welfare, require companies to pay a higher wage, and reduce taxes on the middle class . The end amount of buying power would probably be about the same, but there would be much less government involvement in our lives. It amazes me how many conservatives and libertarians claim that they desire less government and lower taxes, but then they support more government and higher taxes.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

The conservatives love to say get your ass to work and take care of yourself. They love to call people takers and leeches yet they are against raising the minimum wage the very thing that would get people off food stamps by the thousands. Way too many time conservatives are against the problem and the cure and this is a prime example. Why is it so hard for conservative to put the blame on companies like Wal-Mart who under pays and thousands of their workers have to get food stamps to make up for it instead of the poor people who get low wages and a non 40 hour work week. I don't seem to hear you conservatives bitching about that. Just wondering why?

Hi, James. I'm sorry to see that your facilities for logic haven't improved any.

On one hand, you say that conservatives blame poor people for the fact that they take food stamps...and then you say the conservatives blame companies like Walmart for the fact that those people take food stamps. Doesn't that sound rather illogical to you? But hey...news flash, James...it's not the conservatives who blame companies like Walmart. It's the liberals who do that. I mean, look at just who it is that wants to force companies like Walmart to raise their wages. Not the conservatives, that's for sure.

The truth is, James, the ones to blame for so many people taking food stamps is liberals in government who have enabled them to do so.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Walmart shouldn't be subsidized, but many municipalities want the business moving into their towns, so they give Walmart a pass on taxes for years, in order to entice them. You probably need to call your local city politicians and bitch at them about it.

This point, lizzie, is irrelevant and off-topic. Local city politicians are not the ones who are setting food stamp policies.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Exactly. Subsidizing low paying employers just to keep prices low doesn't even make any sense. there is no net economic gain there. The extra that we pay in taxes offsets any savings that we have in prices. taxes. essentially, we are taxing the middle class to subsidize walmart so that walmart can charge the middle class less.

It would be much more simple to end welfare, require companies to pay a higher wage, and reduce taxes on the middle class . The end amount of buying power would probably be about the same, but there would be much less government involvement in our lives. It amazes me how many conservatives and libertarians claim that they desire less government and lower taxes, but then they support more government and higher taxes.

Wait...did you just say "end welfare"? "Reduce taxes"? And you are saying that conservatives and libertarians are the ones who don't want to do those things?

I'm thinking you don't have a very good grasp on our two political parties.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Right, so middle class people have to subsidies Walmart workers so poor people can buy cheap crap? I think that model is bad for America.

I'm sure those middle class people would be very happy to have their "subsidy" of Walmart workers end. The smartest and easiest way to do that would be to end food stamps for most people and reduce taxes. Unfortunately, the liberals never want to do the smartest or easiest thing.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

We can start with enough pay so that you don't qualify for foodstamps or other governments benefits for the poor.

With that definition, perhaps the solution to a decent wage is to reduce the food stamps and other benefits to the poor. Then more people would be earning a decent wage.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Wait...did you just say "end welfare"? "Reduce taxes"? And you are saying that conservatives and libertarians are the ones who don't want to do those things?

I'm thinking you don't have a very good grasp on our two political parties.

Many don't.

You haven't noticed all of the conservatives arguing that welfare is preferable to a higher minimum wage? You haven't seen all the conservatives claiming that welfare is better for our economy than a higher minimum wage because welfare keeps the prices at Walmart low?

You haven't noticed all the conservatives who claim that we should have a "strong safety net"?

And yes, it is super confusing when people argue both sides of an argument.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I'm sure those middle class people would be very happy to have their "subsidy" of Walmart workers end. The smartest and easiest way to do that would be to end food stamps for most people and reduce taxes. Unfortunately, the liberals never want to do the smartest or easiest thing.

The funny think is that I totally agree. yet I am often accused of being a liberal, by people who claim to be conservatives and support subsidies.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

With that definition, perhaps the solution to a decent wage is to reduce the food stamps and other benefits to the poor. Then more people would be earning a decent wage.

More people would be demanding higher pay, and fewer people would be locked into poverty out of fear of losing their means tested welfare benefits. So yes, ending all forms of means tested welfare would be a good start.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Sorry my friend but that ship does not float. The fact is 64% of people who are on food stamps work. The government is helping those cheap tight wads get rich at tax payer money while destroying the economy by undercutting those who pay better. I too was taught to work for what you get but the damage from losing 10 million manufacturing jobs and forcing those workers into the service field instead which pays less. Not to mention all those jobs lost to the housing bubble bursting. You can not blame the people on food stamps for that whether they are working or not.

You do realize, do you not, that those jobs went overseas due to the cost of doing business being less in other countries than in the US. Labor is the major component of costs in most businesses. The other being government regulations and taxes. Perhaps your ire should be directed toward unions and government.

The housing market collapsed because the inventory of homes available exceeded the inventory of purchasers with the desire and ability to purchase. The government solution was an attempt to manage the demand side by making home purchase available to marginal purchasers, many of which had no hope of making the payments. Collapse was inevitable.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Right, so middle class people have to subsidies Walmart workers so poor people can buy cheap crap? I think that model is bad for America.

Middle class people are subsidizing Walmart workers because they work for low wages, not because Walmart pays low wages. But even low wages are better than no wages and kudos to people willing to work. But we would be more compassionate if we didn't encourage people to take those low wages.

Stop the subsidies and people will be less willing to work for low wages and will do what they have to do to earn better wages. When you subsidize those who work for low wages, there is much less incentive for them to do anything to improve those wages. The fault isn't with Walmart. The fault is with those who buy votes from people by paying them not to better themselves.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Middle class people are subsidizing Walmart workers because they work for low wages, not because Walmart pays low wages. But even low wages are better than no wages and kudos to people willing to work. But we would be more compassionate if we didn't encourage people to take those low wages.

Stop the subsidies and people will be less willing to work for low wages and will do what they have to do to earn better wages. When you subsidize those who work for low wages, there is much less incentive for them to do anything to improve those wages. The fault isn't with Walmart. The fault is with those who buy votes from people by paying them not to better themselves.

I think that Rabbit is actually agreeing with you. Regardless, the point is that Walmart benefits from this subsidy, because with welfare, Walmart workers are much more likely to NOT leave for a higher paying job when they may lose part of their welfare by doing so. So yes, when we provide welfare, we do indeed subsidize Walmart.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

The conservatives love to say get your ass to work and take care of yourself. They love to call people takers and leeches yet they are against raising the minimum wage the very thing that would get people off food stamps by the thousands. Way too many time conservatives are against the problem and the cure and this is a prime example. Why is it so hard for conservative to put the blame on companies like Wal-Mart who under pays and thousands of their workers have to get food stamps to make up for it instead of the poor people who get low wages and a non 40 hour work week. I don't seem to hear you conservatives bitching about that. Just wondering why?

I put the blame on the Clinton Free trade zone, and liberals who want to enjoy the extra supply of low wages paid to illegal aliens. Afterall, they will do the jobs Americans don't want. Right?

Well guess what liberals. Your actions are what cause the severe imbalance of labor supply vs. jobs available. Want walmart to pay more? change the supply and demand variable. stop buying products made in China, Malaysia, etc.

Stop buying Toyota, Honda, etc.

Change your spending habit and make it so industry will open more US factories. Stop blaming business for being good at being competitive. They simply do what is best under our government policies in place.

Stop blaming the likes of Walmart. That's a cop-out.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Sorry my friend but that ship does not float. The fact is 64% of people who are on food stamps work. The government is helping those cheap tight wads get rich at tax payer money while destroying the economy by undercutting those who pay better. I too was taught to work for what you get but the damage from losing 10 million manufacturing jobs and forcing those workers into the service field instead which pays less. Not to mention all those jobs lost to the housing bubble bursting. You can not blame the people on food stamps for that whether they are working or not.

Well, we need to start weaning poepl off of government assistance. make them work harder if that's what it takes. Nobody except the children, elderly, and disables should be subsidized in America.

Remind us again why so many people are irresponsible, having kids they cannot afford to raise. Isn't that a form of child abuse?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Many don't.

You haven't noticed all of the conservatives arguing that welfare is preferable to a higher minimum wage? You haven't seen all the conservatives claiming that welfare is better for our economy than a higher minimum wage because welfare keeps the prices at Walmart low?

You haven't noticed all the conservatives who claim that we should have a "strong safety net"?

And yes, it is super confusing when people argue both sides of an argument.

Actually, I haven't noticed conservatives arguing that EITHER is preferable. I certainly haven't noticed any conservatives saying that welfare is good because it keeps prices low at Walmart. Perhaps you can point me to the people who are saying these things?

In any case, there is a difference between a safety net...whether strong (whatever that means) or not...and a subsidy system that sets some arbitrary number as being "poverty" and then transferring tax dollars to people who earn FOUR HUNDRED times that level.