Not everyone has the skills, experience, attitude to demand a "living" wage. People who don't, are still producing in a quite real economy, for less then what you or some politician think should be the minimum. Nothing parasitical about the job. The employer gets work from the employee, the employee gets money. Neither is acting as a parasite against the other. Its mutualism, not parasitism
"Good jobs" are good relative to other jobs. Typically they are good jobs because the person who holds them produces more value for his or her employer then the person working at an "average" or "bad" job. Some people are at the bottom in terms of ability, experience, attitude etc. They are unlikely to be able to hold good jobs (absent nepotism, blackmail etc. or a lot of luck). If they generally could, then those jobs would no longer be considered good jobs. Remember these are people at the bottom in terms of what they can produce for their employer. Others would produce more valuable work for their employer and get compensated more, and that would now be the new level for "good job".
The real economy pays the wages that drive consumer demand, while the parasite economy erodes it.
Nonesnse. Having a low paying job increases demand over the alternative. These people are not going to be CEO's, doctors etc. At least not now (some of them have the inteligence and determination, but don't' have experience and education, and maybe lived in a depressed area, so now they can't produce enough value to earn "good job" wages, but they might be able to later on.) The alternative to a low paying job is no job. With no job, they will have less demand not more.
Also there's the minor point (minor because its not relevant, having a low paying job does increase demand over the alternative), not driving consumer demand does not in any way equal or suggest parasitism.
it’s not the working poor who deserve our derision, but the low-wage businesses that exploit them. These are the real deadbeats of the parasite economy: companies with a business model predicated on a cheap supply of taxpayer-subsidized labor, growing fat on the vast wealth of consumer demand generated by the middle-class wages of the real economy, while leaving employees with little if any discretionary income of their own.
The low wage workers benefits form having the job. Its a beneficial not a parasitical relationship.
As for tax payer subsidized, I've already debunked that more than once (once in this conversation).
But I think I phrased it better elsewhere, so I'll repost that -
1 - Its the government's action to decide to pay welfare, food stamps, etc. Not Walmart's.
2 - Walmart doesn't increase the cost to the government it reduces it. The government pays out less in benefits because of Walmart jobs.
3 - Benefits paid by the government probably increase the cost of low skilled labor by increasing the reservation rate of potential low skill/pay employees.
So you have an action by government, not Walmart, that isn't made more costly by Walmart, and that increases cost for employers of entry level employees (and might have contributed to Walmart's decision to go to $10/hour).
Message 29980888
The more generous welfare (broadly defined) is, the higher reservation rates for employment potential workers are going to have. Most clearly they are unlikely to take jobs that pay less than the welfare check. Also even if the job pays slightly more many won't accept working 20 to 40 (or more) hours for only a relatively modest amount more than the welfare payments. So welfare likely increases the cost of hiring low end workers.
Message 29643703
Also see
forbes.com
(which is also quoted at Message 29499392 if you have any problems with that link)
How Welfare Hurts Walmart
Bryan Caplan
Walmart's critics often argue that food stamps, Medicaid, and other poverty programs [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html]subsidize its labor force. Since government pays a big part of its workers' living expenses, Walmart doesn't have to. Is this true?
As long as non-workers remain eligible for poverty programs, the answer is no. This is basic supply-and-demand. When the government offers free stuff to people with low incomes, the marginal benefit of work falls - and so does labor supply. When labor supply falls, hours of work go down, and wages rise. This could be very nice from the point of view of Walmart's workers. From the point of view of Walmart's stockholders however, it's bad.
Not convinced? Ask yourself: "If I ran Walmart, would I favor higher unemployment benefits?" Of course not. Why not? Because higher unemployment benefits make it easier to not apply for a job at Walmart. The same goes for any government program that makes idleness less unpalatable...
econlog.econlib.org |
