Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (760769)	1/2/2014 6:26:26 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574380

Many of their employees, even many of their entry level employees, don't receive aid. The ones that do cost a lot of money. The state of Wisconsin breaks out the costs of Medicaid on a per employer basis. At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207. money.cnn.com That is about 11% of the total Walmart employees. If they qualify for Medicaid, they almost certainly qualify for SNAP and/or other aid. Now 11% may not sound like much, but Walmart has more than 1.5 million employees in the US and that would translate to more than 160 thousand employees getting aid. We are talking real money here. That and the fact that and the fact that they can get 38 applications of each new position ( Message 29302340 ) make your claim seem rather dubious as a significant point, at least for Walmart. You didn't think through, did you Tim? What it does show is how desperate people are for jobs. Any job. Unemployment and SNAP are miserable ways to live. Across the country, there are 3 people looking for a job for every opening. Some places it is worse. Yes if it impacts their competitors than the extent that employers can afford to pay more increases. But you would still have many employers (esp. smaller ones, rather than huge businesses like Walmart) that could not afford to make the transition. If this were true, then there would be a wave of bankruptcies every time there was a minimum wage increase. That has never happened. You need to rethink your theories. And those who can are incentivized to reduce employment (except to the extent that they are getting extra business from those who bow out, but total employment is likely to be reduced). Other than the fact that has never happened, I suppose you have a point. It isn't like the minimum wage has never been raised. While a few, decades old studies did show some small effect on minimum wage hikes, those studies also had methodological flaws. Newer, better controlled studies show no decline in employment. So you can theorize in a vacuum, but out in the real world it doesn't happen.