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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alex MG who wrote (3981)	12/31/2016 7:46:53 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362927

>>>... the min wage should be between $10-15 per hr, depending on the market area...<<< I see those wages for entry level unskilled or low skilled jobs in high income areas of Colorado, like ski resorts. Ski resorts have small local populations and they have to pay that wage to get employees. In other areas like low income large population urban centers, it would be a hardship on employers to take on employees at that level of pay.

To: Alex MG who wrote (3981)	12/31/2016 11:41:45 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362927

but when a full time job still leaves a person eligible to collect govt assistance because they are below the poverty level then something is terribly wrong. The level that leaves a person eligible for government assistance, is a political determination (codified in to law), not some moral principle. I would say what is wrong is to not let people work (legally) if their skills are such that they can't generate enough gain for their employer to cover wages arbitrarily set by another political decision (some "living wage" standard). Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize Walmart billionaires Local and perhaps state tax payers probably do subsidize Walmart sometimes (mostly tax breaks for locating in some specific location), but welfare spending is not a subsidy for Walmart. --- 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 ----- 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). Welfare benefits are an anti-subsidy for Walmart, but even if they were an actual subsidy for Walmart, I'd still find the argument for higher minimum wages based on this subsidy to be faulty even objectionable for reasons that Julian Sanchez lays out here - Message 29521233 (Link to my post with a full quote rather then the original link since the original link no longer works). Short form for those who won't follow the link (which wasn't directly about wages or Walmart, but the general principle applies anyway). The government subsidies the poor to try to avoid the worst effects of extreme poverty. That's the government's action not Walmart's and doesn't justify attacks against Walmart or locking some people out of jobs. If government subsidies effectively go to someone other then those considered legitimate recipients (for example Walmart rather than the poor), its the government's fault not Walmart's and such a government mistake hardly provides strong reason to have the government do even more and expand its power further. (Esp. since it would be at the expense of the lowest skilled workers, rather than to their benefit). Sanchez makes the general argument better than I did so I recommend following the link. . anyone not willing to pay someone at least $10 per hr is basically an immoral fuck face, Walmart actually does pay $10/hour (or more) to everyone hired before Jan 1st 2016, and $9/hour for those hired since until they complete training when they will also get $10/hour. But lets say your talking about Walmart before their policy change or some other employer who still pays less - They pay millions of people $7.50 or $8 or whatever. What are you paying these people? Nothing. Sure its unlikely you have the income to able to afford to pay many people $10/hour or the work available where you would receive a net benefit even after paying many people $10/hour, but that's also true of many employers of the lowest skilled people. Some literally can't afford to pay that much, others could pay that much but not for the benefit they receive from the workers with the worst skills and habits. They might move up a level and pay slightly better qualified people $10 (or more) per hour, but even if employment doesn't drop in that scenario (and its likely to be at least slightly lower then it otherwise would have been), the somewhat better qualified people getting a job doesn't help the now unemployed person with the worst job qualifications all that much. Walmart or McDonald's or whoever is helping these people out a lot more than I am or you are. What strikes me as immoral is intruding on to the liberty of others while also forcing some people to lose their jobs (or accept worse non-wage conditions, benefits, flexibility etc. as the employer has less room to provide these at the higher wages, esp. $15/hour or more).