Consider this a technical question rather than a social question. If a couple are both working full time at minimum wage (say Walmart) and they receive foodstamps, subsidized Obamacare and the Earned income Credit, Who is being subsidized? The couple who receive Government benefits. Walmart, who can pay a lower wage and still attract employees. or the consumer who pay lower prices because Walmart can pay lower wages.
Now now. Poor people allegedly pay more taxes than anybody else so they clearly are self-subsidizing.
The couple that don't have the motivation to do what it takes to work where the pay is better than Walmart. Walmart would pay higher wages if they had to, to attract employees, then the consumer would have to pay more.
This ignores coercion in the labour contract (e.g. monopsony power is the norm). The 'Wal Mart effect' leads to both wage and employment losses. Such an empirical result is not possible in a market characterised by simple 'supply & demand' exchange
The Walmart effect prevents their employees from seeking employment elsewhere, going to a trade school, or university?
The Wal Mart Effect shows that there are significantly negative effects on wage and employment opportunities. That cannot occur in the simply supply & demand environment that your original comment is reliant upon
How does "the Walmart effect" stop a Walmart employee from doing things that increases their skill set, and get a better paying job?
Several posst refer to the idea that there is nothing to prevent the employeee from acquiring a higher skill set, education or even university. To anyone who has ever shopped at Walmart, it should be apparent that for many of the employees, that job as a stock taker or cashier makes full use of their capabilities. Not all are capable of performing higher level tasks. For those who can manage to acquire a slightly higher level of skills, they face a crowded job market. However, the lack of ability does not reduce the basic needs of food, shelter, healthcare and an income when they are no longer able to work. These basic needs cannot be met at Walmart wages. We are not all created equally. The beginng of the bell curve has a very long tail. A quarter of the population has an IQ lower than their pulse rate. While many of those can get more highly paid jobs, others add to this population due to health, and psychological issues.
What would happen if everyone was able to magically invest in their education? Underpayment would simply increase. You haven't understood the failures in the simple supply & demand, ensuring that you craft utopian comment
So, college educated are more "underpaid" than those earning minimum wage? Or, are you describing the transient situation when there is a sudden supply of educated? You keep rambling on about supply and demand. You disagree that Walmart would pay more if they had to, to attract employees?
Nope. But if you simply had a general increase in education you would see an increase in underpayment. You don't understand the labour market. You treat it like the market for lard. Only a right winger would call supply & demand ramble. You've made an argument based on an utopian understanding of supply & demand. I didn't. I realise the folly of such guff
Most college educated are more underpaid because there skill level is much higher than their wage level. This is because a glut of college graduates in the labour market has allowed employers to increase their employment criteria without increasing wage offers for many jobs that were previously filled by trade school graduates. These days many college graduates are employed in permanent positions that used to be filled with secretarial or clerical or accounting trade school graduates. In the past college graduates were employed in these positions only as a path to management, these days they are employed permanently in clerical and other positions that are non-managerial but can be classified as salaried management or professional positions because they are filled by college graduates, which allows their employer to avoid paying them overtime. These days the median wage for a skilled tradesman is 20-30% greater than the median wage for a college graduate. 30years ago it was the opposite.
That is so wrong its laughable. Business Insider (a lefty mag) crunched some numbers abd came up with this: http://www.businessinsider.com/no-the-rich-do-not-pay-all-the-taxes-2013-12 The article doesn't consider benefits (which are not taxed) that poor people receive, so the article exagerates the taxes paid by poor people.
Poor comparison. Effective rates of tax have to be applied. Given the interaction of tax and benefit systems, that makes the highest tax rates on the poor. Indeed, the tax rates can be near or exceed 100% (generating poverty and unemployment traps)
Unemployment traps - Paying enough benefits, so as to make it not worth their while to go back to work. The poor don't pay tax on their income and their benefits are tax free. They (with taxpayer subsidization) buy more lottery tickets and cigarettes. Of course they(actually the taxpayers) are paying more in taxes, because those things are taxed extra. I work 60 hours/week for my paycheck, so I can subsidize someone either too lazy to work or too stupid to get an education that will improve their financial situation beyond needing government assistance. Half of America pays their own way by working hard and/or smart and the other half is sticking their hand out demanding equal living conditions. I'm not talking about the disabled and I'm not talking about people who have retired and are living on what they gave up to the government for 40 years. I'm talking about the people who work hard at getting out of work. The people who keep having babies so that we will increase their welfare payments. We need to take away the incentive to live on the public. The government has ruined charitable giving. It worked because it was shameful to beg and even use food stamps. They have what looks like my debit card and they can pretend that they earned that money just like I earned mine. Last month I saw a woman who bought $450 worth of meat and used an EBT card to pay for it. She was escorted by what looked to be her teenage daughters and their kids. She was dressed way better than me. I joked with her before I saw her card and said "I hope you have a big freezer". She responded "Oh I do." I saw her in the parking lot loading her meat into a newish $35k+ Suburban. My point is that I did it right. I got my education and started my career before I married and only then started having kids. Why can't I expect that from everybody? People want the right to act like idiots and call me insensitive when I expect them to pay for it.
Get to hear this sort of anti-American comment by the right all the time. The US has greater social immobility and, unlike most countries, an empirically tested underclass. You're therefore saying Americans are, on average, more feckless than the likes of Europeans. It will always be a stance that I acknowledge as bogus.
Does Walmart actually pay enough that their employees can afford to pay to improve their education level. Does Walmart provide education subsidies for their employees. Does Walmart deliberatly structure working schedules to keep many employees working part time.
A 2 year degree is pretty cheap, and in CA, there are programs that allow transferring 2 years worth of units to a 4 years school. I assume this is pretty typical. Student loans are easily acquired by those that choose that path, or go the way of a trade school. Those programs have pretty much disappeared in the US. I have no experience with Walmart, but my daughter has had a lot of unskilled jobs, often 2 or 3 at a time. All the employers cooperated with the schedule she needed to go to school and to work the other jobs.
If taxes on the poor were near, or exceeding 100%, all the poor would have starved to death, resulting in no poor. Your statement is flawed.
How is berating a lazy American "anti-American". With our freedom, we are the most productive people on the planet. Our freedom has diminished over the last decade. Our fences are still there to keep people out of our country. We export a lot of food and financial aid and we provide security for half the world. Our military is starting to wane, but that will change. And don't tell me I'm anti-military. I served for 9 years and have earned the right to be critical of them as I see it. A new commander in chief will do wonders.
Already said: you're essentially arguing that Americans are more feckless than Jonny Foreigner. Of course the reality is different: class structure where individual choice is typically in sham territory
They are. Culture provides a common set of values, thus trust. Mix cultures, with different values (read "The 36 Strategies"), trust is lost. American was formed as a melting pot of many different cultures. The old world (both Europe and Asia) were homogenous. Europe is experiencing that lack of trust with immigrants. I asked a Japanese employee that had been in the US 3 years, how the US was differed than Japan. His answer was we have many rules. What he meant was we don't rely on culture, because we don't have the common culture Japan does. When he was to return to Japan 4 years later, he expressed concern for his wife and 7 year old daughter, because they had been tainted by western culture, and would be outcasts.
I've already heard your anti-American attitudes. Shush now, want to see if the other fellow has similar twisted beliefs
Everyone involved. The couple first because the system is paying them a wage (Walmart is able to hire more workers due to the low wage) and providing benefits. Walmart second because they can attract both customers and low wage employees. And last the customer who is able to buy more goods with less money. However since the system fosters declining wages everyone is a victim of the system also. The customer first as pay raises and higher paying job opportunities decline. Walmart as people budget themselves more realistically and buy less, and the couple last as their hours at work decline due to loss of business.
