"Hard-Working American" Myth

[IGIT]

The reason why they're created and their intention is meaningless.

And of course Walmart improves society. They employ millions of people and provides tens to hundreds of millions of people with access to cheap goods.

hi again Ben,

here is a good example, i'm glad you cited WalMart.

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

i agree that it is a net benefit, since all those jobs are being provided. it thus follows that if a corporation can be massively profitable and provide jobs, taxpayers should subsidize those corporations, since everybody wins in that scenario.

i'm agreeing with you, Ben (sorry i wasn't more clear).

- IGIT

 

[HIMBOB]

Well obviously the business is not going to keep him. Can you please explain why the business not keeping him is a good thing?

And what the hell do you mean by "consumes more than it creates?"

Ok the employee needs 100 units to live and work.
If he goes to work and creates 90units of value, this work consumes more than it creates.



It took 100 units to produce 90 units, a loss.

Right now this is sustainable and he would get paid something like 80units by the employer and 20 units by the government.

Employer put in 80 units, and got 90 out, 10 units profit Good deal for him.
Employee gets the live, good deal for him.
Government paid 20 units, so a business could get 10 units of profit.

That is not sustainable.

 

[kpt018]

hi again Ben,

here is a good example, i'm glad you cited WalMart.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

i agree that it is a net benefit, since all those jobs are being provided. it thus follows that if a corporation can be massively profitable and provide jobs, taxpayers should subsidize those corporations, since everybody wins in that scenario.

i'm agreeing with you, Ben (sorry i wasn't more clear).

- IGIT

Huh? Net benefit to who? As a middle class tax payer that number pisses me off. Why do they deserve that government subsidy!

Fucking moochers!

 

[ben236]

I am sure the vast majority of min wages roles would continue to be profitable for employers if paid a living wage.

And I am sure that the vast majority of people who work minimum wage already have a living wage given their circumstances:

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/mwap/section_03.php

Impact of minimum wages on poverty

The link between poverty and low wages is weak for a variety of reasons. Many poor families have no employed workers in the household or they work only a few hours, and many others work at wages above the minimum wage. Many minimum wage workers are youth who live in non-poor families, or are persons in multiple earner families where the combined earnings takes them out of poverty. Moreover, minimum wage jobs are often taken as temporary stepping-stones to higher paying jobs.

Empirical findings provide support for these arguments for both the US (Burkhauser and Finnegan, 1989; Card & Kruger, 1995; Burhauser, Couch & Glenn, 1996; Burkhauser, Couch & Wittenberg, 2000; Vedder and Gallaway, 2001, 2002; Neumark and Wascher, 2002; Neumark Schweitzer and Wascher, 2005; Burkhauser and Sabia, 2007; although not in Mincy, 1990 or Addison and Blackburn, 1999 and Canada (Shannon & Beach, 1995; Goldberg & Green, 1999; Benjamin, 2001; Campolieti, Gunderson and Lee, 2012). Surprisingly, some studies even find that a higher minimum wage leads to an increase in poverty. Sen, Rybczynski and Van De Wall (2011) found a small but statistically significant increase in poverty due to higher minimum wages: a 10% minimum wage increase was found to be significantly associated with a 4%-6% increase in the percentage of families living under Low Income Cut Offs (LICO) in Canada between 1981 and 2004. The higher minimum wages trigger higher unemployment, which results in more poverty as household incomes drop among low-income families.

Given what we know about the demographic profile of people working at minimum wages, it is not surprising that the overlap between working at the minimum wage and being under the poverty line is small. Only about 12.5% of minimum wage workers lived in poor households in 2011 according to Statistics Canada's Low Income Measure (LIM). The vast majority (i.e., 87.5%) lived in households with incomes above the LIM. (Estimates provided by the Ontario Ministry of Finance based on the Labour Force Survey). Thus, although raising the minimum wage would reduce poverty for some, its overall impact on poverty as a whole would be limited.

So while your heart's in the right place, you really aren't helping the people you're trying to help by raising the minimum wage.

But if it costs more for a worker do some task than then the value created by the task, its not something that should be doing. And its certainly not something that should be supported on a governmental level.

Then what should that worker be doing? Maybe that other job that pays more money?

Wait... If there was another job that he could be doing that pays more money, then why isn't he doing it right now?

 

[ben236]

And it's employees need welfare and is also a large welfare recipient. What about all the mom and pop shops Walmart has replaced? It's awful for the economy.

I'm not making a statement here whether they should exist or not. But it's really naive to think all businesses benefit society. Businesses quite specifically benefit their owners or they cease to exist. You live a bubble man.

Those mom and pop shops charge more money for goods, and employ fewer workers.

It's not like those mom and pop shops were paying their employees $20 an hour either.

 

[IGIT]

Huh? Net benefit to who? As a middle class tax that number pisses me off. Why do they deserve that government subsidy!

Fucking moochers!

hiya KPT,

1) the poor now have low wage jobs, as opposed to having no jobs.

2) Walmart surges onward and the owners are multi zillionaires.

3) the taxpayer gets the "feel good" vibe knowing that they, in their own way, are being pro-business by subsidizing Walmart's employees while allowing Walton family to bathe in buckets of money.

like i said, everyone wins.

- IGIT

 

[kpt018]

Those mom and pop shops charge more money for goods, and employ fewer workers.

It's not like those mom and pop shops were paying their employees $20 an hour either.

Um, that's why there are more of those mom and pop shops. If there's demand, there is no shortage of supply. Walmart sent them all packing because they can sell cheaper. For lots of reasons.

Anyway, forget Walmart. As usual you distract from the main points. And tbh I would if I were you too. It's completely naive to think ALL businesses benefit society.

 

[kpt018]

hiya KPT,

1) the poor now have low wage jobs, as opposed to having no jobs.

2) Walmart surges onward and the owners are multi zillionaires.

3) the taxpayer gets the "feel good" vibe knowing that they, in their own way, are being pro-business by subsidizing Walmart's employees while allowing Walton family to bathe in buckets of money.

like i said, everyone wins.

- IGIT

Oh gotcha. You were being sarcastic. Lol.

 

[ben236]

Ok the employee needs 100 units to live and work.
If he goes to work and creates 90units of value, this work consumes more than it creates.

It took 100 units to produce 90 units, a loss.

Right now this is sustainable and he would get paid something like 80units by the employer and 20 units by the government.

Employer put in 80 units, and got 90 out, 10 units profit Good deal for him.
Employee gets the live, good deal for him.
Government paid 20 units, so a business could get 10 units of profit.

That is not sustainable.

But not every worker needs 100 units to survive. There are plenty of workers who live at home and simply want a few extra bucks to buy a couple of beers and dime bags on the weekend for whom 90 units would be more than sufficient.

 

[OldGoat]

hiya KPT,

1) the poor now have low wage jobs, as opposed to having no jobs.

2) Walmart surges onward and the owners are multi zillionaires.

3) the taxpayer gets the "feel good" vibe knowing that they, in their own way, are being pro-business by subsidizing Walmart's employees while allowing Walton family to bathe in buckets of money.

like i said, everyone wins.

- IGIT

And I am sure you are paying your fair share of your usage of the highways? Or are you a part of the moocher class?

 

[HIMBOB]

And I am sure that the vast majority of people who work minimum wage already have a living wage given their circumstances:

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/mwap/section_03.php

So while your heart's in the right place, you really aren't helping the people you're trying to help by raising the minimum wage.

Then what should that worker be doing? Maybe that other job that pays more money?

Wait... If there was another job that he could be doing that pays more money, then why isn't he doing it right now?

I am not trying to help the min wages employees directly, they should be largely uneffected as instead of receivng help from the government they would just get it directly from the employer.


I am helping the government who can then in turn help those people if they so needed.



In short:
My objection is that the current system results in a flow of funds from tax payer to big business (Bad) and as a side effect it supports people working in unproductive tasks (Bad).

 

[kpt018]

And I am sure you are paying your fair share of your usage of the highways? Or are you a part of the moocher class?

Ever cross over any of the bridges in NYC? I sure as hell am paying way more then my fair share.

 

[IGIT]

And I am sure you are paying your fair share of your usage of the highways? Or are you a part of the moocher class?

hiya OldGoat,

over the course of my career, i've made between 80 to 120k every year (from my late twenties on). besides a boatload of Merck stock (which i don't sell), i'm not heavily vested in the market so i don't get my income sheltered by the low taxation on capital gains - i get crucified by taxes, haha. i am in the worst bracket.

i also own properties, but have no children, so i (happily) pay into our K-12 programs without any direct benefit to myself. i ride my bicycle to work and use about 2 tanks of gas per month (though i do have jobs "on location", so i do use our wonderful US highway system).

if you're an old guy, i'm paying for your social security and medicare benefits, even though there's going to be nothing there by the time my turn comes...

i am pretty sure i pay my fair share, Goat.

- IGIT

 

[ben236]

Um, that's why there are more of those mom and pop shops. If there's demand, there is no shortage of supply. Walmart sent them all packing because they can sell cheaper. For lots of reasons.

You do understand that selling goods for cheaper is a good thing right? It basically increases the value of their customers' dollar (ie. makes the customer richer).

Anyway, forget Walmart. As usual you distract from the main points. And tbh I would if I were you too. It's completely naive to think ALL businesses benefit society.

I distract from the main points? Seriously?

It was YOU who brought up Walmart.

 

[kpt018]

You do understand that selling cheaper is a good thing right? It basically increases the value of their customers' dollar (ie. makes them richer).



I distract from the main points? Seriously?

It was YOU who brought up Walmart.

As an example. And you ignored the main point I made.

 

[OldGoat]

hiya OldGoat,

over the course of my career, i've made between 80 to 120k every year. besides a boatload of Merck stock (which i don't sell), i'm not heavily vested in the market so i don't get my income sheltered by the low taxation on capital gains - i get crucified by taxes, haha. i am in the worst bracket.

i also own properties, but have no children, so i (happily) pay into our K-12 programs without any direct benefit to myself. i ride my bicycle to work and use about 2 tanks of gas per month (though i do have jobs on locations, so i do use our wonderful US highway system).

i am pretty sure i pay my fair share, Goat.

- IGIT

You probably don't. Those aircraft carriers aren't cheap.

 

[ben236]

As an example. And you ignored the main point I made.

That Walmart is a net detriment to society? I'm pretty sure I addressed it.

Is there anything in particular that you want me to further elaborate on?

 

[HIMBOB]

But not every worker needs 100 units to survive. There are plenty of workers who live at home and simply want a few extra bucks to buy a couple of beers and dime bags on the weekend for whom 90 units would be more than sufficient.

That does not change the fact that this work, creates less value than it consumes.

Surely agree the government should not systematically encourage and support work which creates less value than it consumes.

 

[ben236]

That does not change the fact that this work, creates less value than it consumes.

Surely agree the government should not systematically encourage and support work which creates less value than it consumes.

This isn't true at all... Even if there are workers on food stamps, these workers would be unemployed and would consume even MORE government handouts if WM didn't exist.

 

[OldGoat]

That does not change the fact that this work, creates less value than it consumes.

Surely agree the government should not systematically encourage and support work which creates less value than it consumes.

That makes 0 sense.