Where is America Headed?

[_Chap]

Have opponents of minimum wage legislation commented on this point?

Walmart's business model is forcing its employees to use government services to just stay alive. This decreases Walmart's overhead by shifting it to the tax payers. It is not the only profiteers on the backs of its employees, and the rest of us.
SEE https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ps/309625/

It does seem quite a strong point. Of course one way out of that dilemma would be to cease to pay welfare at all. Somehow I don't think there is (yet) a majority for that, so for the foreseeable future an employer who pays wages below welfare standards to his full-time employees will always be able to relay on the rest of us giving him a covert subsidy.

Surely that is wrong?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Have opponents of minimum wage legislation commented on this point?

Walmart's business model is forcing its employees to use government services to just stay alive. This decreases Walmart's overhead by shifting it to the tax payers. It is not the only profiteers on the backs of its employees, and the rest of us.
SEE https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ps/309625/

It does seem quite a strong point. Of course one way out of that dilemma would be to cease to pay welfare at all. Somehow I don't think there is (yet) a majority for that, so for the foreseeable future an employer who pays wages below welfare standards to his full-time employees will always be able to relay on the rest of us giving him a covert subsidy.

Surely that is wrong?

There has to be some room for change. I just read somewhere that 42.5 million Americans are receiving 'food stamps' which just blows my mind. We need to halve those numbers. We have an obesity epidemic and I guarantee you that half those “F” ers are as round as they are tall. We absolutely should tighten the belt with welfare, perhaps tying it to BMI (heh) along with reducing outrageous spending on the military and various other programs that cause the US federal government to exist in an annual trillion dollar deficit. It's insane.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Have opponents of minimum wage legislation commented on this point?

Walmart's business model is forcing its employees to use government services to just stay alive. This decreases Walmart's overhead by shifting it to the tax payers. It is not the only profiteers on the backs of its employees, and the rest of us.
SEE https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ps/309625/

It does seem quite a strong point. Of course one way out of that dilemma would be to cease to pay welfare at all. Somehow I don't think there is (yet) a majority for that, so for the foreseeable future an employer who pays wages below welfare standards to his full-time employees will always be able to relay on the rest of us giving him a covert subsidy.

Surely that is wrong?

There has to be some room for change. I just read somewhere that 42.5 million Americans are receiving 'food stamps' which just blows my mind. We need to halve those numbers.

US population currently about 323 million. So 42.5 million is 13%. That does not seem an excessive proportion of a population to need some kind of help in getting by, does it?

The SNAP program costs $66.6 billion annually. Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemen ... gram#Costs

Total US budget deficit was about $486 billion in fiscal year 2014. Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rm_outlook

You think that Food Stamps reduction would be the most obvious way of cutting that budget deficit? Why exactly? What alternatives are you willing to consider, and how much might they save? This kind of discussion deserves the cool and rational evaluation of alternative choices. We'll get nowhere useful by getting excited and indignant.

[_EAllusion]

The people I know on SNAP benefits range from receiving $16 per month to close to $180. It's a mistake to simply look at the raw number of people who receive Foodshare as a measure of the level of need. It's not an all or nothing program.

It can't be an all or nothing program. If you simply have a income line that determines if you qualify or not for a large benefit, that creates a financial cliff that provides a very powerful incentive to stay under the required income limit. You need a gradual phase out of benefits, which is exactly how it is structured.

[_EAllusion]

There is a large body of empirical studies showing min wages, as they have actually occurred, did not appreciably affect employment rates. Min wage proponents love to cite those studies to prove that opponents of min wages are ideologues disconnected from actual evidence. On the one hand, yes, min wage increases as they have actually occurred since the 90's have little to no impact on employment rates (and therefore black market labor, etc.) There was sufficient slack in prices/profit margins to absorb those wage increases such that the net effect on employment was negligible. On the other, this doesn't mean the room for creating min wage floors is limitless. The issue really comes down to where min wages relate to the market value of labor in a given area of business in a given location.

What I would suggest is that if you want income redistribution to the lowest earners, increasing the earned income tax credit is a far better way to do it. It's more progressive in its impacts and less dodgy in terms of disrupting the market. Min wages are indeed popular because of people's economic ignorance and thus are viewed as more politically viable than an obviously better solution.

[_Always Changing]

The people I know on SNAP benefits range from receiving $16 per month to close to $180. It's a mistake to simply look at the raw number of people who receive Foodshare as a measure of the level of need. It's not an all or nothing program.

It can't be an all or nothing program. If you simply have a income line that determines if you qualify or not for a large benefit, that creates a financial cliff that provides a very powerful incentive to stay under the required income limit. You need a gradual phase out of benefits, which is exactly how it is structured.

On the other, this doesn't mean the room for creating min wage floors is limitless. The issue really comes down to where min wages relate to the market value of labor in a given area of business in a given location.

What I would suggest is that if you want income redistribution to the lowest earners, increasing the earned income tax credit is a far better way to do it. It's more progressive in its impacts and less dodgy in terms of disrupting the market. Min wages are indeed popular because of people's economic ignorance and thus are viewed as more politically viable than an obviously better solution.

Bingo! Increasing non-cash benefits for low wage earners (and the disabled and retired) is the way to go. Unrealistic increases of minimum wage, and cash benefits for disabled and retired only put more stress on the corporate and federal economies. Unwise spending among such people is problematic, as is excessive carbohydrate intake for the obese (a reason for food pantries which emphasize wise dietary choices). Better to distribute the burden in various programs and entities. There is a reason why food stamp programs are administrated by the US Department of AGRICULTURE.

[_Chap]

What I would suggest is that if you want income redistribution to the lowest earners, increasing the earned income tax credit is a far better way to do it. It's more progressive in its impacts and less dodgy in terms of disrupting the market. Min wages are indeed popular because of people's economic ignorance and thus are viewed as more politically viable than an obviously better solution.

Really? People in different countries and parties have in some cases made the choice of setting a minimum hourly wage (rather than an 'obviously better' solution) simply because they are economically ignorant? That simple, is it?

Might it not be that they see their political and economic choices differently (for a start, they may have different tax systems - I won't argue with you about the US system, which seems interestingly complex, to say the least)? And are you quite sure that you can always succeed in separating those two kinds of choices? There are some quite strong reasons for suspecting that in some situations things are confidently claimed to be simple 'economic facts' when they are in fact simply political choices.

You might be interested in this book by one of a pair of lively and original Korean academic brothers, both of whom now work in Cambridge UK:

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Here is his personal website:

Ha-Joon Chang

And here's a link to a newspaper article he wrote about wage levels:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... no-brainer

You don't have to agree with him, of course. But 'economically ignorant'? Probably not.

[_Always Changing]

I am not saying that there should not be a minimum wage-- I AM saying that it should be realistic. Not set at something like $15 an hour. I will read your links.

[_The CCC]

I am not saying that there should not be a minimum wage-- I AM saying that it should be realistic. Not set at something like $15 an hour. I will read your links.

If the cost of living exceeds any given minimum wage then it is still an unlivable wage. Since we as a country don't want people living in dire poverty. We should have and enforce a livable wage.

[_Always Changing]

If the cost of living exceeds any given minimum wage then it is still an unlivable wage. Since we as a country don't want people living in dire poverty. We should have and enforce a livable wage.

I have participated in such a debate before, where most of the participants are political conservatives. I agree that it is not a liveable wage. That is why (partially) we need subsidized housing, food stamps, food pantry, subsidized medical care, and other benefits, based on income. I do not label myself as either a political conservative or liberal. We need balance in everything.