411–420 of 487 posts
Walmart is another such employer.
Can you get higher productivity by hiring these workers than Walmart?
If no - then why is Walmart the bad guy for paying their employees more than any other company that would have them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this. It is societies responsibility, through their elected government, to take care of people. If we need to support people more, we raise taxes and provide more support via the government. Holding the employer as responsible leads to things like employer provided healthcare, which ties people more strongly to their employer. Weakening the ties between employee and employer makes the workforce more dyna…
How though? We raise corporate taxes on every corporation? We somehow target those with a certain percentage of employees on government subsidies?
Ultimately, the goal is to maximize worker exploitation. And to maximize exploitation, you need just enough welfare for people to survive, but not enough welfare for them to choose better jobs. For example; in this scenario if we offered individuals far stronger welfare benefits (schooling benefits, UBI etc) the odds are that very few people would be warehouse workers for Amazon. Alternatively, if we we forced compan…
You can't hire people and pay them less than their output.
If you tax Amazon more because they hire low skilled workers then the MPL of each low skill worker decrease. Does that increase or decrease the incentive to hire these people? what happens to the price of labor when demand drops?
If your options are pay a worker more than they produce or pay a similar amount in tax, aggregate wages will go down, not up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That isn't the case for most of the country. Most is a figure above 50%. As far as reports indicate poor folks have access to SNAP, it's true in some states and mostly a lie in others. My fingers are kind of tired from debunking SNAP myths today. My other posts here will have to do.
I responded to the asset limit statement. 30+ states do not one have, it’s well over 50% of the country including 9/10 of the most populous states.
That figure excludes the millions of people who meet the guidelines discussed here but are serially denied by state agencies, across months and years. It also excludes millions more who are awarded aid (and categorized as such) but whose benefits total a few tens of dollars.
Florida can represent most of those numbers all by itself, as my earlier posts can attest. Most people here in the 0-30k bracket will be denied SNAP or any other aid.
Me and my own kids lived in and out of hunger for a decade; we were unceasingly denied SNAP by CPS. But mine were a few hungry kids among millions and millions, it makes our family story unremarkable.
FL is far from an outlier.
There massive swaths of the US containing millions of people that are unable to access food aid - no matter the need. Implications otherwise do not represent truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not, it's mostly a sign that benefits are working. Giving workers benefits /increases/ their compensation because it increases their negotiating power. This means they're earning more than they otherwise would. Not less. If it was less, that would mean benefits are bad and we should take them away!
It's incrementally better for them to be making $20 instead of $10, sure. But it's worse for the world for that to be footed by the tax payer instead of by the trillion dollar company that they work for. In effect the tax payers are lining Amazon's pockets.
Why is Amazon the bad guy here? If these workers are productive at $30/hr why hasn't someone hired them already?
I'm the one that should be taxed. I'm not sure I could make them productive in my business for $10/hr, or even $1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporate price gouging is only due to increase in consumer funds. Companies want to price gouge all the time, but were only able to do so because everyone, especially lower income people, had extra cash. Good luck introducing price controls on basic goods like groceries. Otherwise, things like UBI will increase inflation.
that's addressed in my comment :)
If people have more money, they will spend it. Since things are fixed, then prices will go up. That’s what happens when you increase money. You get inflation. You didn’t address how to stop that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please say more about "legal frameworks for life management solutions". You can't just drop those words in that order with no further context and walk away.
What is there to add? People have a growing need to make and express choices about hastening unavoidable eventualities. Willing service providers need legal protections and the ability to document a person’s choices. In Switzerland this has grown into a minor tourist industry. https://www.swissbiz.ca/is_article.php?articleid=47
We really need to stop treating this as such a "gotcha!" The whole idea of welfare is that it is supposed to go to people who need it - working or not. Are people on Food Stamps always going to be unemployed? No? Then are they are going to be employed somewhere? Am I supposed to be mad that these programs are working as designed? Food stamps and medicaid in particular are also explicitly tied to family need. Unless A…
In FL, Medicaid adult eligibility ceiling is $Ø. Also the next states over. And states past that. And more states.
In FL SNAP income limits for adults are [whatever the ASCII symbol is for irrelevant]. Whatever the guidelines are, the vast majority of impoverished adults are denied. Same for next states over. And you get the idea.
Folks posting from states that aren't hostile to vulnerable people are posting their healthcare/assistance figures - in a way that seems to imply their numbers could well represent America. They don't tho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes . Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people wh…
If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?
Rich people don't want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...