Why are people reproducing like rabbits? TAX checks FOOD stamps & more fun benefits!

[Ruken]

@Kimstu

You’re overlooking the fact that childrearing is one of the chief factors that makes workers less mobile and more reliant on their existing support system, including poverty-wage jobs. Yes, paying poverty-wage workers benefits such as SNAP, TANF and Medicaid does constitute a subsidy for Walmart and other poverty-wage employers, by keeping their captive workforce at least marginally functional even on such low earnings.

Then let’s see your math. A worker having another kid and suddenly going from a $0 to $100/week benefit puts how much in Walmart’s pocket? An unemployed person receiving $200/week in benefits lands a part-time job at Walmart and now requires half the support from taxpayers; how much of that shows up on Walmart’s balance sheet? Walmart can pay two people the same amount for the same work, and one gets government benefits and the other does not. The one who receives them does not cost Walmart any less than the other.

@Kimstu

This narrowly focused “individual-choice” perspective, like the similar one that I criticized on the part of octopus, disguises a systemic issue. One in a hundred of all US workers is employed by Walmart: that’s about 2.1 million people total. Fast-food establishments employ about another million. That is a sizeable percentage of America’s reproductive-age population that you’re proclaiming ought to forego having children just because they can’t support a family on their poverty-wage jobs.

People who can’t support a family shouldn’t start one. I don’t feel I’m going out on a limb here. I couldn’t support one for the entirety of my 20s. Like most people, I earned more as I got older. Some small minority may never improve themselves such that they can start a family. But unlike the OP, I’m happy to tax myself to make sure those kids are looked after.

[Kimstu]

@Ruken

A worker having another kid and suddenly going from a $0 to $100/week benefit puts how much in Walmart’s pocket? An unemployed person receiving $200/week in benefits lands a part-time job at Walmart and now requires half the support from taxpayers; how much of that shows up on Walmart’s balance sheet? Walmart can pay two people the same amount for the same work, and one gets government benefits and the other does not. The one who receives them does not cost Walmart any less than the other.

This is your same misleading oversimplification attempt to reduce a systemic economic problem to the circumstances of an individual worker. The real issue is that the provision of taxpayer benefits makes both workers cost Walmart less than it would have to pay if workers were actually dependent on their earnings to support themselves and their families.

If poor workers and their families had to live on their wages, the minimum wage would have to be higher to avoid widespread crippling destitution. But since the government supplies benefits directly to families of poverty-wage workers, employers like Walmart can more easily get away with keeping wages at the poverty level for both parents and non-parents among their employees.

@Ruken

I’m happy to tax myself to make sure those kids are looked after.

So am I. But I’m less happy with full-time workers having to receive that taxpayer help for their kids just so wealthy Walmart executives can make a few additional hundred million dollars by paying poverty-level wages.

[AI_Proofreader]

@Ruken

I’ve lost count of how many times this myth has been debunked. An extra dollar from my taxpayer wallet into a benefit recipient’s wallet does not increase Walmart’s bottom line. A single adult working full time at federal MW does not qualify for SNAP, let alone one working at Walmart wage, which is higher. Decide to have a kid or three? Then maybe. We the taxpayer’s have decided to make that our problem, but it’s not Walmart’s problem. A household making over $50k/year can even qualify for SNAP given the right (or wrong) combination of disaster and family planning choices.

I agree with the rest of your statement, but it’s worth pointing out that unskilled jobs at large employers like Walmart typically hire lots of their workers part-time so they don’t have to provide benefits. So even a single individual will probably qualify for SNAP and Medicaid with the 20-29 hours a week they’re likely to be scheduled for at minimum / slightly above minimum wage. Add in an unemployed spouse or dependents, and they’re certain to qualify.

[Voyager]

@Ruken

False. The amount I “have” to pay them is not determined by federal aid. I’ve certainly lived in the red before. My employers didn’t know and wouldn’t have cared.

You take a risk for an upside. They don’t have that upside.
First, if people were going to starve working for WalMart, without government assistance, WalMart would find that people would rather starve by staying home, and they would not be able to hire anyone. Which is what happens the moment the labor market gets tight. That is one reason why WalMart did give raises.
The other involves the implied contract for a fair days work for a fair days pay. WalMart found that the people they got for their crap ages were unmotivated and would rather hang out in the stock room than stock shelves.
You are perfectly able to pay your workers crap - but don’t be surprised if they don’t go the extra mile for you.

[AI_Proofreader]

As someone who used to work in a county office helping people apply for benefits (Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF), I always find it amusing when people suggest people are having kids so they can rake in welfare. TANF / welfare can only be collected for 5 years / 60 total months in the lifetime of a parent. For 1 child, the payments were about $250/mo. This was increased for each additional child, but not doubled; the average amount collected by any family is $400/mo. Note that this is before child support or any other income is deducted.

So $400/mo x 12 = $4800 / year.
Add in SNAP, approximately $300/mo for a similar family of 1-2 parents + 2 children, and you save an additional $3600/year.
With Medicaid, you’re also saving approximately $500/mo in insurance premiums for a family of 4 - $500 x 12 = $6000/year.

So, the maximum (again, before you factor in ANY other income received and reduce the benefits accordingly) you’ll be getting is $4800 cash, $3600 that can only be spent on food, and $6000 you didn’t spend on health insurance.

For a grand total of $14,400 per year… for four people. Which is about 50% of the federal poverty level of $24,600. After 5 years, this drops below $10k when the TANF payments end.

The average cost of raising ONE child from birth to age 18, without paying for college, is $245,000… as of 2014:

Average cost of raising a child hits $245,000

You might make it as a family, but only if you already own a house, which the vast majority of benefit recipients don’t, or if you’re living with other family members, or have extremely subsidized housing. You certainly won’t be living large, and for every additional child you have, your situation gets worse.

The EITC barely even factors into the above, because the maximum you can receive in earned income tax credit with 2 children is $5,616 - adjusted down the higher your income. While your other benefits are ALSO adjusted down the more money you make; so you typically end up breaking even with EITC versus benefit decrease. It is a great program though in that it helps ease the transition as benefits are dropped when you start working.

[Kearsen]

@AI_Proofreader

I agree with the rest of your statement, but it’s worth pointing out that unskilled jobs at large employers like Walmart typically hire lots of their workers part-time so they don’t have to provide benefits. So even a single individual will probably qualify for SNAP and Medicaid with the 20-29 hours a week they’re likely to be scheduled for at minimum / slightly above minimum wage. Add in an unemployed spouse or dependents, and they’re certain to qualify.

Who decided it was the right thing to do to tie worker benefits to employers anyway? Now, if you want to argue that their pay should be compensatory enough for the worker to provide their own benefits, I’d agree with you. But Walmart and a whole host of others get away from providing said benefits by using part time labor (which incidentally is usually the unskilled and low paying jobs)

[running_coach]

@Kearsen

Who decided it was the right thing to do to tie worker benefits to employers anyway? Now, if you want to argue that their pay should be compensatory enough for the worker to provide their own benefits, I’d agree with you. But Walmart and a whole host of others get away from providing said benefits by using part time labor (which incidentally is usually the unskilled and low paying jobs)

Going from memory. Wage freezes around WW2. Employers started offering insurance since they couldn’t offer higher wages to attract workers.

[XT]

@Hector_St_Clare

You do realize that outside of Tropical Africa and certain portions of south Asia, everywhere else in the world is either at replacement, below replacement, or heading rapidly towards below-replacement, right?

Also, there’s a time-limit in the US today of how long you can get welfare for.

The main reason the US is a bit above replacement is immigration. Basically, the OP is just wrong and is wrong on a point that is really easy to check. That the OP didn’t bother to do so before posting what is essentially a rant basically says it all. I note with no surprise that the OP hasn’t been back yet to defend the position.

[Buck_Godot]

@Sage_Rat

Technically, it is true that people with less education have more children:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/childlessness-falls-family-size-grows-among-highly-educated-women/st_2015-05-07_childlessness-11/

But larger families do have larger incomes on average.

Median Income: Family vs. Household

Not quite sure how to square those two facts, but it seems to be the facts.

Based on your second cite, this can probably be explained by age. Older families have advanced further in their career and have had time to have more children. The first cite was for a fixed age group.

[Ruken]

@Kimstu

The real issue is that the provision of taxpayer benefits makes both workers cost Walmart less than it would have to pay if workers were actually dependent on their earnings to support themselves and their families.

By what mechanism and by how much? If my math is too simple then let’s see your less simple math so that we can all learn. Voyager would have us believe that workers would respond to a decrease in purchasing power by stopping work entirely, which is the opposite of my experience. As if starving more is preferable to starving less. Yet our flagship means-tested food-in-bellies cash transfer program has minimal impact on workforce participation (PDF).

@Kimstu

Walmart can more easily get away with keeping wages at the poverty level for both parents and non-parents among their employees.

If you are living in poverty as a healthy non-parent and earning Walmart wages then you aren’t working enough. HHS USCB
And of course most people living in poverty either do not work at all or only word part time. A “poverty level wage” is pretty damn high if you’re only working part-time or part-year.

@Kimstu

so wealthy Walmart executives can make a few additional hundred million dollars by paying poverty-level wages.

There you go again. Even $40k/year is “poverty level” if you go full clown-car.

[Shodan]

The government isn’t subsidizing Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart is subsidizing the government. They provide jobs so that those who would otherwise have to be completely supported by the government can partially support themselves.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

@Shodan

The government isn’t subsidizing Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart is subsidizing the government. They provide jobs so that those who would otherwise have to be completely supported by the government can partially support themselves.

An interesting claim in light of the fact that lots of people who take lower-paying Wal-Mart jobs (when their former “Main Street” employers shut down due to Wal-Mart’s competition) previously were supporting themselves with less assistance from government.

(“A Downward Push: The Impact of Wal-Mart Stores on Retail Wages and Benefits”)

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Ruken

And of course most people living in poverty either do not work at all or only word part time.

Most people work part-time because employers would have to pay benefits to full time workers. For a while people like this were called the “29ers” because the ACA said that anyone working 30 hours a week or more counted as full-time and thus were eligible for health benefits. So, employers started handing out 29 hour work weeks. I do not know if that has been adjusted since a few years ago but shows employers will work pretty hard to avoid paying workers and leave you and me with the bill (if those workers end up in the hospital unable to pay their bills that cost is carried by you and me).

Many part-time employees work more than one job to make ends meet.

And as it happens most people work if they can. The US is currently at full employment (that number is a bit of a gray area but at 4.2% unemployment we are close no matter how you slice it). This means the labor market is about at capacity. That there are a record number of job openings in the market recently backs that up.

[Ruken]

@Whack-a-Mole

Most people work part-time because employers would have to pay benefits to full time workers. For a while people like this were called the “29ers” because the ACA said that anyone working 30 hours a week or more counted as full-time and thus were eligible for health benefits. So, employers started handing out 29 hour work weeks. I do not know if that has been adjusted since a few years ago but shows employers will work pretty hard to avoid paying workers and leave you and me with the bill (if those workers end up in the hospital unable to pay their bills that cost is carried by you and me).

More ammunition for separating healthcare from employment. That 30th hour is expensive. But you’re referencing a small part of the workforce. U-6 minus U-5 was 3.2% last month (seasonally adjusted).

@Whack-a-Mole

Many part-time employees work more than one job to make ends meet.

@Ruken

Data on multiple jobholders from BLS: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.htm

About 7.5MM in 2016, 5% of jobholders.

@Whack-a-Mole

And as it happens most people work if they can. The US is currently at full employment (that number is a bit of a gray area but at 4.2% unemployment we are close no matter how you slice it). This means the labor market is about at capacity. That there are a record number of job openings in the market recently backs that up.

And U-6 is 8.3%; it hasn’t been this low since 2007

[JackieLikesVariety]

@Kimstu

An interesting claim in light of the fact that lots of people who take lower-paying Wal-Mart jobs (when their former “Main Street” employers shut down due to Wal-Mart’s competition) previously were supporting themselves with less assistance from government.

(“A Downward Push: The Impact of Wal-Mart Stores on Retail Wages and Benefits”)

it is an “interesting” claim if, by that, you mean completely wrong.

WEASEL WORDS :mad:

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Ruken

U-6 minus U-5 was 3.2% last month (seasonally adjusted).

I do not know what U-6 and U-5 are.

Are you talking about people who hold more than one job at a time?

A bit of quick math suggests 22% of the workforce is part-time (in 2016) so it is not a small slice.

[Kimstu]

@JackieLikesVariety

it is an “interesting” claim if, by that, you mean completely wrong.

Yeah, it’s amazing how many conservatives seem to believe that the (very large) poverty-wage workforce is just a helpless lumpenproletariat of the congenitally unfit, who ought to be grateful to their employers for deigning to give them shit jobs because clearly they couldn’t cope with anything better.

In fact, many people currently working shit jobs previously supported themselves quite successfully at comparatively non-shit jobs, until the non-shit jobs went away.

[Ruken]

@Whack-a-Mole

I do not know what U-6 and U-5 are.

Are you talking about people who hold more than one job at a time?

A bit of quick math suggests 22% of the workforce is part-time (in 2016) so it is not a small slice.

U-6 minus U-5 gives you workers “employed part time for economic reasons.” Most people working part time want to work part time. You want BLS Table A-15: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The link in my previous post gives you the multiple jobholders.

ETA U-3 is usually what is referenced when people mention the unemployment rate. U-6 is popular among folks who like to make noise about the “real unemployment rate”. They are all useful.

[octopus]

@Kimstu

Yeah, it’s amazing how many conservatives seem to believe that the (very large) poverty-wage workforce is just a helpless lumpenproletariat of the congenitally unfit, who ought to be grateful to their employers for deigning to give them shit jobs because clearly they couldn’t cope with anything better.

In fact, many people currently working shit jobs previously supported themselves quite successfully at comparatively non-shit jobs, until the non-shit jobs went away.

Amazing with a rising wage floor, global trade, and practically unconstrained immigration jobs have been dislocated.

[Kimstu]

@octopus

Amazing with a rising wage floor, global trade, and practically unconstrained immigration jobs have been dislocated.

I don’t understand this sentence. Is that what you meant to type?

ETA: Oh wait, I think I get it: you meant something along the lines of “It is amazing [sarcasm] that given the circumstances of a rising wage floor, global trade, and practically unconstrained immigration, there has been dislocation of jobs?”

Sorry, something about the syntax just initially seemed opaque to me.