If you are low income...it pays better NOT to work

[nc87]

Would corporations rather pay high taxes to fund things like unemployment, or pay higher wages? I'm all for raising the minimum wage to something people can actually live off of.

That's a puzzling either/or you've set up.

Somebody can do the research, and we can argue about the numbers, but I think we all agree that a large percentage of Walmart, Target, etc. workers are on public assistance. I think that is the basis for his point.

My point is that if those places were forced to pay fair wages through a higher minimum wage, those employees would not need public assistance. But the higher minimum wage would be paid for with tax dollars. One way or another, the 1% is going to pay for it.... they bitch about taxes like theres no tomorrow, and they'd bitch about raising the minimum wage, too. Bottom line: the 1% is, generally, greedy as hell, and will complain about the poor no matter how they are taken care of (unless we just let them die off- probably what most of the 1%ers want anyway)

[nc87]

unemployment is probably not a good example. but given that Walmart is making billions in profit while not paying it's workers enough to avoid public assistance, is an argument for raising the minimum wage.

Why isn't it an argument for stopping public assistance?

When you subsidize something, you encourage it. If you subsidize low-paying jobs and you tell someone making $20K that you're going to give them as much take home as they would get if they made $40K, why in the world would they ever want to take steps to improve themselves?

Did you ever think of the fact that maybe they have improved themselves, but not enough to control their own business (and their own wage)? If there is nothing requiring companies to pay a fair wage, they aren't going to. That's how they maximize profits. I'm all for stopping public assistance.... if we are going to make sure that employers pay their employees enough to support themselves. Right now that isn't happening, the 1% is getting richer and richer while everyone else is stuck in neutral. Do you really think its because just 1% of America works hard and/or improved themselves enough?

[RiverguyVT]

I'm elucidating nc87's point (at least in my mind), and did not advocate for a dollar-for-dollar exchange.

I do think its problematic that a very large and profitable company employees, such as Walmart, are largely on public assistance. The government can be viewed as subsidizing this company's business choice to pay these workers at the rate they pay them. I don't think I'm falling into this so-called trap by raising the issue for consideration.

Okay. Gotcha.
I disagree that the "govt is subsidizing a co's business" due to low worker pay.
The gov't is subsidizing the employee/workers' choice to not be more gainfully employed. That ain't on walmart.

[ip_law-hokie]

I'm elucidating nc87's point (at least in my mind), and did not advocate for a dollar-for-dollar exchange.

I do think its problematic that a very large and profitable company employees, such as Walmart, are largely on public assistance. The government can be viewed as subsidizing this company's business choice to pay these workers at the rate they pay them. I don't think I'm falling into this so-called trap by raising the issue for consideration.

Okay. Gotcha.
I disagree that the "govt is subsidizing a co's business" due to low worker pay.
The gov't is subsidizing the employee/workers' choice to not be more gainfully employed. That ain't on walmart.

I think that is a callous way of looking at it. I'm not so naive to suggest that everyone on public assistance is busting their ass, but it is just as naive to suggest that no-one on public assistance is busting their ass.

[RiverguyVT]

I'm elucidating nc87's point (at least in my mind), and did not advocate for a dollar-for-dollar exchange.

I do think its problematic that a very large and profitable company employees, such as Walmart, are largely on public assistance. The government can be viewed as subsidizing this company's business choice to pay these workers at the rate they pay them. I don't think I'm falling into this so-called trap by raising the issue for consideration.

Okay. Gotcha.
I disagree that the "govt is subsidizing a co's business" due to low worker pay.
The gov't is subsidizing the employee/workers' choice to not be more gainfully employed. That ain't on walmart.

I think that is a callous way of looking at it. I'm not so naive to suggest that everyone on public assistance is busting their ass, but it is just as naive to suggest that no-one on public assistance is busting their ass.

Ass-busting is totally irrelevent.
The gov't isn't subsidizing WalMart.
The gov't would be subsidizing workers based on life choices, circumstance, bad luck, what have you.

The desired outcome (everyone making a great wage) isn't WalMart's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the worker. If we were in a closed system (gov't says I "must" work at WalMart) it would be an issue. People are free to chose what they do & where they work. Their individual outcomes aren't walmart's responsibility.

WalMart says "I need this done. What is it worth?" They then find someone to do what needs doing, and pay the market price. If what needs doing isn't super valuable, that isn't something Walmart should then overcompensate for. The Gov't isn't subsidizing what needs doing @ WalMart.

It may seem callous, but sometimes life is tough. No bed of roses and all that.
I've worked retail before. It is a job of transience. All jobs of transience can't be expected to result in the same wage as jobs not so constructed.

A man puts socks on a peg in a store. What's that worth?
Should it pay the same as a man who builds a masonry wall? I think not.
Gov't has no business setting price. It isn't equipped to do so, #1, and #2, it isn't gov't's role.

[Marine Hokie]

the 1% is getting richer and richer while everyone else is stuck in neutral. Do you really think its because just 1% of America works hard and/or improved themselves enough?

That's not remotely true. You're referring to propaganda and talking points about relative wealth. The absolute wealth and standard of living is measurably increasing for everyone.

[Marine Hokie]

...given that Walmart is making billions in profit while not paying it's workers enough to avoid public assistance, is an argument for raising the minimum wage.

Walmart agrees with you. It seems counterintuitive, but historically large and entrenched businesses favor costly regulations that they can absorb and drive their smaller competitors out of business. Just like Amazon is the driving force behind the internet sales tax federal legislation, Walmart is lobbying in favor of raising the minimum wage, knowing that smaller businesses won't be able to keep up.

Let's say the minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $12. What happens to the low-wage employees who are only producing $7.25-$11.99 for the businesses? Instead of getting a pay increase, they generally lose their job. Once they lose their job, not only are they not producing anymore, they're getting paid (through government assistance) to not create value. Overall productivity is decreased, resulting in less growth and fewer opportunities.

I will grant you this. There should be a provision to allow educated workers to work unpaid, or for an equity interest in a company without pay, when the company is a startup trying to get off the ground. Rules against unpaid labor are tough on startups and young workers trying to get experience and a foot in the door.

I somewhat agree (please try and convince the politicians), but where is the line? Is there a (profit?) point where a company no longer can use unpaid interns?

Unless you're leaving something out, you have a gap between $0 and whatever the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is $12, what happens with the employee whose labor is worth $10? Should they be forced to work as a free intern, since the company would be violating the law by hiring them at a mutually agreed on $10?

[Hokie5150]

Would corporations rather pay high taxes to fund things like unemployment, or pay higher wages? I'm all for raising the minimum wage to something people can actually live off of.

That's a puzzling either/or you've set up.

Somebody can do the research, and we can argue about the numbers, but I think we all agree that a large percentage of Walmart, Target, etc. workers are on public assistance. I think that is the basis for his point.

My point is that if those places were forced to pay fair wages through a higher minimum wage, those employees would not need public assistance. But the higher minimum wage would be paid for with tax dollars. One way or another, the 1% is going to pay for it.... they bitch about taxes like theres no tomorrow, and they'd bitch about raising the minimum wage, too. Bottom line: the 1% is, generally, greedy as hell, and will complain about the poor no matter how they are taken care of (unless we just let them die off- probably what most of the 1%ers want anyway)

how would tax dollars pay the higher minimum wage?!?

[nc87]

then those employers have zero choice but to jack up the sales prices on its products as the biggest cost factor for them is probably labor and you can't lose money forever (unless you are the federal gov.)

.... Or, instead of jacking up prices, they could make 999 million in profits instead of 1 billion. I don't think Walmart is going broke anytime soon, minimum wage increase or not....

[BigDave]

then those employers have zero choice but to jack up the sales prices on its products as the biggest cost factor for them is probably labor and you can't lose money forever (unless you are the federal gov.)

.... Or, instead of jacking up prices, they could make 999 million in profits instead of 1 billion. I don't think Walmart is going broke anytime soon, minimum wage increase or not....

The minimum wage exists at more than just Walmart. Mom and pops don't have an endless supply of money to pay their stock boys $12/hour and full health care.

Also, those evil Walmart stockholders may very well include your retirement plan. It's normal middle class people, not just rich guys, who benefit from companies making a profit.

Oh, and by the way, Walmart has 2.2 million employees. Their profit was $17 billion last year. If those employees average 30 hours per week, raising their pay $5/hour * 1500 hours/year * 2.2 million employees comes out to $16.5 billion. But wait, the employer's share of FICA adds another $1.3 billion. So that would cost Walmart $17.8 billion per year, or, more than their profit last year.

[nc87]

A lot of assuming going on there, Dave. Do you really think all of Walmarts 2.2 million employees make minimum wage? Does the wage have to be raised $5? I know it's hard to understand for people so out of touch with hardships average people face (republicans) but even a $1 increase is a big deal to people who make minimum wage.

[awesome guy]

A lot of assuming going on there, Dave. Do you really think all of Walmarts 2.2 million employees make minimum wage? Does the wage have to be raised $5? I know it's hard to understand for people so out of touch with hardships average people face (republicans) but even a $1 increase is a big deal to people who make minimum wage.

they don't make minimum wage, they're largely part timers. And will be even more part time thanks to Obamacare. People who are clueless about economics (democrats) just don't get it. So if you raise the minimum wage $1, $5, $100, whatever, employers will just raise prices by that amount or more, passing the increased costs onto consumers. So whatever imaginary gain you're giving to the bottom rung is eaten up by increased expenses. You can't escape the economic reality that such jobs just aren't worth that much and the market will contort around the deformation you're creating. Plus only morons think any sizable portion of the population is trying to raise a family on minimum wage. That's what you get for your first 3 or so months of employment.

[cwtcr hokie]

you did study math in Wilmington, right? you started the conversation saying a wage that would be a decent living $1 aint going to do that, $5 is only about 12 something and hour, about $24k a year and that is not buying the car and the big screen tv and the latest iphone

A lot of assuming going on there, Dave. Do you really think all of Walmarts 2.2 million employees make minimum wage? Does the wage have to be raised $5? I know it's hard to understand for people so out of touch with hardships average people face (republicans) but even a $1 increase is a big deal to people who make minimum wage.

[cwtcr hokie]

So walmart is the only company on the planet that has lower wage workers? or is your plan just to stick it to walmart and not bobs groceries in the next town?

then those employers have zero choice but to jack up the sales prices on its products as the biggest cost factor for them is probably labor and you can't lose money forever (unless you are the federal gov.)

.... Or, instead of jacking up prices, they could make 999 million in profits instead of 1 billion. I don't think Walmart is going broke anytime soon, minimum wage increase or not....

[RiverguyVT]

A lot of assuming going on there, Dave. Do you really think all of Walmarts 2.2 million employees make minimum wage? Does the wage have to be raised $5? I know it's hard to understand for people so out of touch with hardships average people face (republicans) but even a $1 increase is a big deal to people who make minimum wage.

Well, they should go find work that is worth that $1 more than what WalMart will pay someone to hang socks out of a box onto a peg.

[133743Hokie]

unemployment is probably not a good example. but given that Walmart is making billions in profit while not paying it's workers enough to avoid public assistance, is an argument for raising the minimum wage.

Why isn't it an argument for stopping public assistance?

When you subsidize something, you encourage it. If you subsidize low-paying jobs and you tell someone making $20K that you're going to give them as much take home as they would get if they made $40K, why in the world would they ever want to take steps to improve themselves?

Did you ever think of the fact that maybe they have improved themselves, but not enough to control their own business (and their own wage)? If there is nothing requiring companies to pay a fair wage, they aren't going to. That's how they maximize profits. I'm all for stopping public assistance.... if we are going to make sure that employers pay their employees enough to support themselves. Right now that isn't happening, the 1% is getting richer and richer while everyone else is stuck in neutral. Do you really think its because just 1% of America works hard and/or improved themselves enough?

Companies do pay a fair wage -- they pay the employee for the value of their contribution (or work). It isn't about how hard you work, or how physical the labor is, etc. It's about what benefit you bring to the table.

[Major Kong]

National Federation of Independent Business...we've been members since the late 50's. We still get newsletters and I'm active in the forums. There are more than a few small business owners in CA concerned about the wage increase though the $10 an hour increase doesn't hit until 2016.

Wal*Mart, Target, etc. aren't concerned at all and are celebrating the raise. Another issue on the horizon will be occurring in Washington State in a union backed ballot initiative concerning SEATAC...minimum wage for hotel/motel, restaurant and transportation workers will be $15hr if passed...basically making it very difficult for any small business operating around SEATAC.