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 (780987)	4/22/2014 12:27:31 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Respond to of 1575535

>> This $6.2 billion estimate is based on a study prepared by the Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May 2013 Talk about blame shifting! House Democrats blame Walmart because House Democrats enacted law to provide benefits to people who earn less than certain levels of income? And somehow, that is the fault of the companies that employ them?

To: TimF who wrote (780987)	5/28/2014 4:24:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575535

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. Once you grasp why standard welfare programs hurt Walmart, you are ready to search for counter-examples. Is there any government program that actually increases labor supply? Indeed there is: the Earned Income Tax Credit. To benefit from this program, you have to work. The more you work, the larger your tax credit. When the EITC goes up, the marginal benefit of work rises - and so does labor supply. This doesn't mean that Walmart is the sole beneficiary of the EITC; unless labor demand is perfectly inelastic, workers capture some of the program's benefits too. But from Walmart's point of view, a bigger EITC is better. econlog.econlib.org