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: neolib who wrote (5543)	1/10/2017 3:03:35 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 357063

That comment was rude and unwarranted.

To: neolib who wrote (5543)	1/10/2017 5:10:38 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 357063

"If the welfare payments didn't happen then, at least to the extent they either make more than minimum wage, currently work under the table, or would accept under the table work (which would also be more likely if they didn't receive any welfare payments) it would be easier for the employer to get the current or potential employee to work." Exactly Well thanks for agreeing, but that blows a pretty big whole in the idea that welfare is a subsidy for employers of low income labor. Note if the payments didn't happen "it would be easier for the employer to get the current or potential employee to work" Another way of stating that same point is that since they do happen it is more difficult for the employer to get the employee to work. Since its more difficult, the employer has to do something to overcome that difficulty, more pay, better working conditions etc. That cost the employer money. Therefore welfare costs the employer of low skill/wage employees money. Something that costs you money usually isn't considered a subsidy to you. As for the school the farmer isn't getting paid to build it (and even if he was it would be compensation for that not a subsidy), and if he's hiring low end and maybe illegal labor he probably doesn't' care much about their educational level (if anything a more educated work force would increase his costs), and even if it did benefit him it would be as part of a broad general positive externality not a subsidy to the farmer.