What would the people who are not willing to work for wages without subsidies do? If they wanted to eat they would have to work somewhere and so would not exit the workforce.
More likely is that there are certain people who do not work now because of the subsidies but would be forced to work without the subsidies. If those people entered the workforce supply of workers would go up and wages would fall. So subsidies are costing Walmart money not making it money.
The point is that WalMart pays its employees less than what their labor is worth. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t have $16 billion in profits (or whatever the number is). The value of the profits represents the transfer of wealth from the workers (the people who created it) to the people who own the company.
I see you have been boning up on your Marx and Engels economic theories.
Fix my ignorance: in what way is he incorrect?
Does this apply to every company that earns a profit (for profit companies) or has retained earnings (non-profit companies), or is it just Walmart that pays its employees less than what their labor is worth?
I don’t profess expertise in the eligibility requirements for the various federal welfare programs, but aren’t they generally based on income and family size, not employment status? Thus, the choice is between subsidies and minimum wage+subsidies. The availability of assistance would seem to me to shrink the labor pool, as some people who can get by purely on government assistance choose to do so. In the absence of such assistance, there’d be more pressure to find a job, any job, and thus lower wages.
But, I’m no economist.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm
People under 25 consist of 1/5th of the hourly paid workers. People under 25 make up about half of the minimum wage paid. I hypothesize that the reason for this is that people under 25 have fewer marketable skills , and therefore their work is worth less money. Why should the people at walmart (specifically) be paid more for jobs where they are easily replaced?
No. Many of them are tied to employment status.
Workers don’t deserve to be paid more than the bare minimum that they would accept. No one is forcing them to work at walmart. Or to not have marketable skills. I believe minimum wage is a crutch to help people with higher (American-level) standards get jobs because SOMEONE out there will do that same quality work for cheaper.
The way he is incorrect is that the value comes from the system the employees are placed in. There is no difference between the employees of KMart and Walmart. Yet one is going out of business and the other is earning billions in profits. That is because the management of Walmart has created a system that uses the employees in a way that creates value.
Just respond to a couple of points.
About the slavery commparison. In case some of you missed it earlier in the thread, here’s my clarification of my use of the term:
"First, you ignored the phrase “in principle”. The principle is enjoying the benefits of the labors of others while offering little in the way of compensation.
"
And in case you think this is the first time this comparison has been made, read more here.
The concept of slavery does not depend on things like selling your children, etc.
As for the comments about the jobs that would not exist if Walmart disappeared, well it turns out that Walmart didn’t really create those jobs. It stole them from other businesses that went under when Walmart arrived. Studies have shown that not only does Walmart not create new jobs, its presence sometimes results in a net loss of jobs. That’s discussed here and here.
As for Walmart only paying the going market rate for labor, well Walmart is in a position to directly influence that rate in the markets they enter.
Why? As cited above, when Walmart moves in, it destroys many of the jobs that existed before. So there are no longer the same employment alternatives. Without competition for labor, they drive the labor rates downwards.
Where he asserts this -
If their labor was worth more than what they could get at Wal-Mart, they would go somewhere else and get paid more. If they can’t find another job that pays more, then they are not being paid less than their labor is worth.
Regards,
Shodan
After doing some more research, it appears that:
Medicaid - not tied to employment status.
SNAP - tied to employment status, for able-bodied adults between 18-50 with no dependent children.
Section 8 - not tied to employment status.
WIC - not tied to employment status.
SSI and SSDI - not tied to employment status.
So, I concede that SNAP can, for some, act as a subsidy for employers. Any others, though?
Are people unable to choose how much they would like to work for? If Kmart or target or (insert walmart competitor) is paying more money for their jobs, why do the employees choose to work at walmart? Must be the can food drives.
Your research is wrong. Medicaid is tied to employment status in many states, and the federal minimums for eligibility are tied to that status.
The level of SSI and SSDI benefits are also related to prior employment.
I don’t know about SNAP, Section 8, and WIC, but based on the other errors I wouldn’t be too sure about your conclusions.
Generally, the welfare-to-work movement of the 90s tied many state and federal benefits to employment.
I didn’t say he was incorrect, but the comparison reminded me of Marx & Engels, whose economic theory, in the broadest sense, said that all of management’s profits were unjustly diverted from the worker’s sweat.
For those that think Wal Mart should pay their employees a higher wage, exactly what skills do the vast majority of Wal Mart employees have that would deserve a higher wage? For the most part, the only real requirement for most jobs at Wal Mart is to not be in a coma. If you’ve been working at Wal Mart (or any other minimum wage job, for that matter), more than six months and haven’t been promoted or moved on to a higher skilled, higher paid position somewhere else, you have to be nearly brain dead or have no absolutely no marketable skills whatsoever.
When I entered the job market, at 15 years old, my first job was at McDonald’s making minimum wage - I think it was $3.15 an hour then. Just by showing up for work on time, working hard when on the clock, not stealing, and generally acting like a civilized human being, I was promoted and given a raise within 3 weeks. I used my experience there and got another job 4 months later for nearly double what I was making at McDonalds. For doing nothing more than simply meeting the basic standards expected of anyone at a place of employment.
If you’re working at a entry-level position at Wal Mart, and have been there for years and have not been promoted or moved on, you better evaluate what skills you bring to the table - and include social and behavioral skills in there, because the behavior of some of the workers at Wal Mart’s I’ve been in leave ALOT to be desired.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
The point is that WalMart pays its employees less than what their labor is worth. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t have $16 billion in profits (or whatever the number is). The value of the profits represents the transfer of wealth from the workers (the people who created it) to the people who own the company.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, should be simple enough. Let’s say that we do away with minimum wage laws. Now, can LinusK demonstrate that there would be no one willing to work those same jobs for less than minimum wage? I doubt it. Secondly, can LinusK demonstrate that the people currently working those jobs are being coerced into working them, that they aren’t voluntarily selling their labor for that agreed upon price? Again, doubtful since there is always a choice, even if the choice is working or not working.
Simply saying that Walmart ‘wouldn’t have $16 billion in profits’ proves nothing except that Walmart is a profitable company. The fact that people willingly work there (and, at least at the local Walmart where I live there is a waiting list of folks trying to work there) pretty much shows that the assertion that Walmart is somehow paying their employees less than their labor is worth is wrong, since by definition if Walmart is offering a job for $X and people are willing to offer their labor for $X then they are paying exactly what the labor is worth TO WALMART. And if Walmart is under bidding for that labor, then that should mean that they won’t be able to find people willing to work those jobs, people taking their labor to K-Mart or McDonald’s or somewhere else where their skills can be used, and then Walmart would have to up their rates in order to attract workers.
Oh, right, I just checked the federal Medicare, forgot how much control states have. So, partially true of Medicare.
Understanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
SSDI is based on prior employment, but not current employment (by it’s nature, of course). It shouldn’t have been on my list, actually, since it’s for those who cannot work, and thus not something a prospective Wal-Mart employee would have to reckon with.
[Eligibility](http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility#Employment Requirements). Able-bodied adults with no dependent children are only eligible to collect benefits for 3 months per 36 month period.
TANF is another big one that is tied to employment.
Edit: Also SNAP does have work requirements for many non-disabled participants limiting the amount of time they can receive benefits without working.