The idiocy of the "subsidzing Walmart with welfare for workers" meme

If 100% of the welfare needs of Walmart (and other low-wage retailers) were provided directly by the job's wages and benefits, who is ultimately paying for that? Well, frankly it's whoever shops there and buys their stuff. Companies generally do not aim to sell at an operating loss, so they will price their goods more or less relative to what it costs to get them on the shelves. So... who shops there and buys their stuff?



On the other hand, let's imagine Walmart (and the like) were given exemption from all minimum wage laws and forbidden from paying any wages or benefits to employees, and instead all such employees had all their needs met by federal welfare payments and benefits. Who would pay for that?

Well, indirectly speaking, whoever shoulders the federal tax burden. Roughly speaking, federal tax revenue is as follows:


And of those largest income and payroll tax wedges, who pays most of that?



So would someone like to explain to me why liberals are so hellbent on shifting the cost burden of providing for the welfare of low wage workers away from the rich, and more toward the poor? Because that is ultimately the effect of pushing the welfare costs of low-wage workers onto the companies that cater to poorer consumers, instead of "subsidizing" it with welfare.

Plus, if it's true, it's also true of anyone who pays their workers at a comparable level, so picking on Wal-Mart specifically for it betrays certain motives of those who do so.

Neomalthusian said:

If 100% of the welfare needs of Walmart (and other low-wage retailers) were provided directly by the job's wages and benefits, who is ultimately paying for that? Well, frankly it's whoever shops there and buys their stuff. Companies generally do not aim to sell at an operating loss, so they will price their goods more or less relative to what it costs to get them on the shelves. So... who shops there and buys their stuff?

On the other hand, let's imagine Walmart (and the like) were given exemption from all minimum wage laws and forbidden from paying any wages or benefits to employees, and instead all such employees had all their needs met by federal welfare payments and benefits. Who would pay for that?

Well, indirectly speaking, whoever shoulders the federal tax burden. Roughly speaking, federal tax revenue is as follows:

And of those largest income and payroll tax wedges, who pays most of that?

So would someone like to explain to me why liberals are so hellbent on shifting the cost burden of providing for the welfare of low wage workers away from the rich, and more toward the poor? Because that is ultimately the effect of pushing the welfare costs of low-wage workers onto the companies that cater to poorer consumers, instead of "subsidizing" it with welfare.

Click to expand...

Introduce a VAT to replace payroll taxes plus some and halve income taxes.

How about this thought experiment...make a company beholden for the welfare benefits of its employees.

in other words, keep the wellfare systom, safety net, etc, in place. mEverything the same. who qualifies, who doesnt, all the same. Track each and every person on those benefits, and send their employer the bill.

joG said:

Introduce a VAT to replace payroll taxes plus some and halve income taxes.

Click to expand...

Looks like you failed to grasp the point of the OP.

KevinKohler said:

How about this thought experiment...make a company beholden for the welfare benefits of its employees.

in other words, keep the wellfare systom, safety net, etc, in place. mEverything the same. who qualifies, who doesnt, all the same. Track each and every person on those benefits, and send their employer the bill.

Click to expand...

Looks like you failed to grasp the point of the OP.

Neomalthusian said:

Looks like you failed to grasp the point of the OP.



Looks like you failed to grasp the point of the OP.

Click to expand...

Seems the OP didn't make its point very clear then

joG said:

Seems the OP didn't make its point very clear then

Click to expand...

When companies are paying for all of the social needs of their workers, those companies' customers are shouldering that cost burden. In the case of cheap retail, it's largely less affluent Americans paying that cost.

When instead federal welfare provides for the welfare needs of the same workers, that cost, albeit indirect. is ultimately born by whoever pays taxes.

Walmart customers, for example, tend to be poorer. Where is the top 50% of income earners pay virtually all federal income taxes.

Neomalthusian said:

If 100% of the welfare needs of Walmart (and other low-wage retailers) were provided directly by the job's wages and benefits, who is ultimately paying for that? Well, frankly it's whoever shops there and buys their stuff. Companies generally do not aim to sell at an operating loss, so they will price their goods more or less relative to what it costs to get them on the shelves. So... who shops there and buys their stuff?

On the other hand, let's imagine Walmart (and the like) were given exemption from all minimum wage laws and forbidden from paying any wages or benefits to employees, and instead all such employees had all their needs met by federal welfare payments and benefits. Who would pay for that?

Well, indirectly speaking, whoever shoulders the federal tax burden. Roughly speaking, federal tax revenue is as follows:

And of those largest income and payroll tax wedges, who pays most of that?

So would someone like to explain to me why liberals are so hellbent on shifting the cost burden of providing for the welfare of low wage workers away from the rich, and more toward the poor? Because that is ultimately the effect of pushing the welfare costs of low-wage workers onto the companies that cater to poorer consumers, instead of "subsidizing" it with welfare.

Click to expand...

This assumes Walmart is something we all want/need. When in fact, everyone would be much better off without a Walmart altogether. Those poor people would likely still have jobs and businesses that Walmart's been pushing out of the market for years. Why should we subsidize the Walton family? Because it would make it cheaper for the poor? No it won't, it'll just make Walmart more money. And help them finish the job of pushing every competitor out of the market. Then they'd expand into services as well as retail. Robbing everyone of more jobs. Forcing everyone to work for walmart, while being paid by the State. What happens when Walmart is the major employer in the State? Do we just nationalize it and become a communist country?

It would be better for everyone if we broke Walmart up. Forced into 6-7 companies, and made to offer real wages, small businesses will feel a great amount of relief. Entrepreneurship will rise, and competition will make everyone's lives better.

Ever visit canada? Their walmarts have to pay a living wage, and they still offer goods cheaper than everywhere else. They still undercut everyone, and they still push a couple hundred jobs out of a community and replace them with 18-20 jobs. Is their profit still in the billions? Yes, even with paying a **** ton in taxes to the Province and country. Nothing but a monopoly breakup will actually stop Walmart from growing, expanding, and gaining more. Because they operate in narrow margins and profit off of bulk deals, it doesn't matter what they pay their employees in wages. The profit margin stays the same, the price stays artificially lower than local and regional merchants, and people are forced to shop there because there is no alternative after local merchants go out of business. As does the suppliers in the region that support those local merchants, and the factories that provide for those suppliers. And where does Walmart get there goods? Foreign markets, offering it cheaper.

So no, having the State start paying their employees benefits and wages is nowhere near a good idea.

ThoughtEx. said:

This assumes Walmart is something we all want/need.

Click to expand...

The American people have said that it is.

Why should we subsidize the Walton family?

Click to expand...

We're not. One of two groups is going to pay for the welfare needs of poor Walmart workers. It's either going to be Walmart shoppers, collectively (see chart in Post 1 to know who makes up this group, hint, it tend to be poorer people), or taxpayers, collectively (see table in post #1 to see who comprises this group, hint, it's higher-income people only).

And help them finish the job of pushing every competitor out of the market.

Click to expand...

Antitrust regulations are necessary, but that's for another topic.

It would be better for everyone if we broke Walmart up.

Click to expand...

Costco, Amazon and Kroger each rake in over $100 billion a year. Break Walmart up, these and others will grow to fill that demand.

Ever visit canada? Their walmarts have to pay a living wage, and they still offer goods cheaper than everywhere else.

Click to expand...

Then in Canada, the people that shop at Walmart (as opposed to the people that pay the majority of Canada's taxes, i.e. wealthier people) are the ones shouldering that cost.

The insistence on "make Walmart pay" is really just "make the people who shop at Walmart pay." Your position on this matter is actually regressive, you just don't seem to grasp that it is.

Neomalthusian said:

The American people have said that it is.



We're not. One of two groups is going to pay for the welfare needs of poor Walmart workers. It's either going to be Walmart shoppers, collectively (see chart in Post 1 to know who makes up this group, hint, it tend to be poorer people), or taxpayers, collectively (see table in post #1 to see who comprises this group, hint, it's higher-income people only).



Antitrust regulations are necessary, but that's for another topic.



Costco, Amazon and Kroger each rake in over $100 billion a year. Break Walmart up, these and others will grow to fill that demand.



Then in Canada, the people that shop at Walmart (as opposed to the people that pay the majority of Canada's taxes, i.e. wealthier people) are the ones shouldering that cost.

The insistence on "make Walmart pay" is really just "make the people who shop at Walmart pay." Your position on this matter is actually regressive, you just don't seem to grasp that it is.

Click to expand...

The American people have said no such thing. With inflation devaluing the dollar, and many families having to rely on credit to maintain a lifestyle they think they can afford, the low costs of Walmart is a necessity they must indulge to ride the edge of first world poverty. There is cause/effect ripples happening around Walmart that would win an economist a nobel prize for figuring out. Walmart, doesn't even comprehend the affect it has on economies. I am in no way saying that Walmart is an evil company, or should be penalized because they are somehow trying to hurt us.

Your rebuttals on current competitors are meaningless, as I was laying out a scenario of what would happen if the State adopted the wage/benefits burden of Walmart. It would beat it's competitors, absorb them. Without the burden of wage earning employees, it would outperform Amazon and dominate the online markets. It's lobby would rival that of the Hospital or Pharma Industries, which run both sides of the aisle today. Plus, it's flipping socialism on a level that the State cannot bear. Or should.

There is a reason why capitalism is at the top spot. Despite how hard our poor have it, our poor are still in the top percent of the world. And that is because of capitalism. Not only that, our global economy lifted around a billion people above the poverty line. That's the true poverty line mind you. Which is, if you have ever used a Washing Machine in your life. You are above the poverty line of the world. And capitalism will continue to lift more people above that line. So no, I don't feel a bit sorry for poor Americans that have to choose between food or the cable. They don't ****ing need cable. They don't all need a cell phone. Or cars. And they don't need a Walmart offering them cheap junk from a foreign factory. They need to get that cheap foreign junk from their neighbor bob in his appliance store. So the dollars are split between the community you live and the foreign labor market. Which lifts up both. And not one family from Arkansas, that already have more money than they could spend in ten generations.

They need to live in there means, build credit responsibly, and start saving a portion of their income before they even pay their bills. And we need to reign in fractional reserve banking before it inflates the dollar so much we'll be sliding fifties into a soda machine.

ThoughtEx. said:

The American people have said no such thing.

Click to expand...

Walmart is the most successful corporation of all time because Americans shop there, so, yes they most certainly have.

The money to provide for the welfare of Walmart workers is going to come from somewhere. If it comes from Walmart, that means it's disproportionately coming from the pockets of the people who shop at Walmart, which as I've shown tend to be poorer. If it comes from welfare, that means it (indirectly) comes from the pockets of higher-income people only, because they are who pays taxes.

What about this don't you understand, and why do you defend the regressive position of making lower-income Walmart shoppers pay more instead of higher-income taxpayers?

Neomalthusian said:

Walmart is the most successful corporation of all time because Americans shop there, so, yes they most certainly have.

The money to provide for the welfare of Walmart workers is going to come from somewhere. If it comes from Walmart, that means it's disproportionately coming from the pockets of the people who shop at Walmart, which as I've shown tend to be poorer. If it comes from welfare, that means it (indirectly) comes from the pockets of higher-income people only, because they are who pays taxes.

What about this don't you understand, and why do you defend the regressive position of making lower-income Walmart shoppers pay more instead of higher-income taxpayers?

Click to expand...

It's not higher income tax payers responsibility to provide for these workers out of there own pocket to that extent. A social welfare program, although imperfect, mostly provides for disabled people, and single parent families, as well as the elderly who's family can't take care of them. A large chunk of medicaid recipients are also on medicare and living out the rest of their days in a nursing home. All but a tiny portion of their SS check goes to medicaid. And their assets have been seized. Their retirement accounts spent down. If they were married their spouse gets to keep the house and one car til they themselves need round the clock care. The next largest chunk of people on medicaid are children under 18. The percentage of people on entitlements like foodstamps that are working are more restrained by logistics of poverty, and are only temporarily receiving benefits to overcome a road block. They aren't chronic abusers as many try to paint them to be, and generally only accept the stigma of food stamps to ensure their children are fed.

I for one don't mind paying for the care of children and the Elderly, or feeding struggling families. What pisses me off, is subsidizing large corporations running record profits year to year. Which is what you are proposing. A free market benefits us all, subsidizing corporations removes our choice. Take your commie bs elsewhere comrade.

ThoughtEx. said:

It's not higher income tax payers responsibility to provide for these workers out of there own pocket to that extent.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that, on principle, you want lower (not higher) income Americans to pay more than they currently do to provide for the welfare needs of other also-lower-income Americans. That is what you're saying. I take it you consider yourself politically conservative?

I for one don't mind paying for the care of children and the Elderly, or feeding struggling families. What pisses me off, is subsidizing large corporations

Click to expand...

You're not "subsidizing corporations." You're "subsidizing" the people that choose to both work there as well as sign up for these programs. The difference between their needs being met via welfare vs. by mandated higher wages and benefits is who ultimately pays. With welfare, it's most definitely higher-income Americans that pay for their needs, because they are definitely the ones paying most of the taxes. If it's forced upon Walmart, it's lower-income Americans paying, because it's typically lower income Americans spending their paychecks at Walmart. Should higher-income Americans shoulder most of this burden, or should other lower-income Americans? You pick.

A free market benefits us all, subsidizing corporations removes our choice. Take your commie bs elsewhere comrade.

Click to expand...

My objective with this thread is to determine why liberals can't connect the dots on this issue. The money to compensating low-wage retail workers ultimately comes from the people that purchase stuff from those retailers. I provided demographic information about who shops at these places, and they are generally poorer than the those who pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Liberals say they want wealthier people paying more to meet the needs of poorer people, but then they advocate policies that go against it. Why do they self-contradict?

Neomalthusian said:

When companies are paying for all of the social needs of their workers, those companies' customers are shouldering that cost burden. In the case of cheap retail, it's largely less affluent Americans paying that cost.

When instead federal welfare provides for the welfare needs of the same workers, that cost, albeit indirect. is ultimately born by whoever pays taxes.

Walmart customers, for example, tend to be poorer. Where is the top 50% of income earners pay virtually all federal income taxes.

Click to expand...

Partially true. I am not sure of what you want this to go, though.

Neomalthusian said:

So you're saying that, on principle, you want lower (not higher) income Americans to pay more than they currently do to provide for the welfare needs of other also-lower-income Americans. That is what you're saying. I take it you consider yourself politically conservative?



You're not "subsidizing corporations." You're "subsidizing" the people that choose to both work there as well as sign up for these programs. The difference between their needs being met via welfare vs. by mandated higher wages and benefits is who ultimately pays. With welfare, it's most definitely higher-income Americans that pay for their needs, because they are definitely the ones paying most of the taxes. If it's forced upon Walmart, it's lower-income Americans paying, because it's typically lower income Americans spending their paychecks at Walmart. Should higher-income Americans shoulder most of this burden, or should other lower-income Americans? You pick.



My objective with this thread is to determine why liberals can't connect the dots on this issue. The money to compensating low-wage retail workers ultimately comes from the people that purchase stuff from those retailers. I provided demographic information about who shops at these places, and they are generally poorer than the those who pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Liberals say they want wealthier people paying more to meet the needs of poorer people, but then they advocate policies that go against it. Why do they self-contradict?

Click to expand...

No, your trying a tactic known as straw man. I don't think higher income tax payers are responsible for what I call economic welfare, which is what you are suggesting. But rather social welfare. Economic welfare ensures a class based society with no upward movement from those at the bottom. Social welfare provides for those who can't move upward anyway. Either due to disability, age (old and young), or temporary circumstance.

As far as you bs on mandated high wage being welfare, a living wage adjusted for inflation is not a hard goal to achieve for the most profitable corp. in the world. Especially one who operates like Walmart does. In fact they do it in many countries they operate in, with no problems at all. Pretending like a living wage will skyrocket all prices and hurt the poor who shop there is ridiculously stupid. Walmart profits off volume, if they lost low income shoppers they would go out of business. So they have to keep the prices affordable for low income shoppers, otherwise they can't sell enough to profit in the margins.

Let me explain it this way, if walmart is selling a toy for 5 bucks, that toy probably cost 7 bucks to make and transport. But because of Walmart's size they bought enough to drop the prices of 1 million of the toys to 3 bucks per unit. Now they then split these units among 100 stores, before they are shipped the labor costs of these stores is applied to the price, bringing the toy to 4.92. Leaving 8 cents profit, well they sell a million at 8 cents profit and they've made quite a bit. Increasing the cost of labor a couple bucks per employee would drive the price up from 5 to 5.75 and there profit margin would stay the same, and the consumer would still be getting a 7 dollar toy for under 6.

Oh I picked up your feeble attempts at trying to make liberals seem like they are communists. Your mistake was not knowing a damn thing about the subject. Let me help you with that before someone like Visbeck comes along and embarrasses you.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPNZwz5_o_5uirJ8gQXnhEO

This is a series of thirty five short videos that will give you a idea of why you shouldn't try to show up liberals in an area you have no basic understanding in.

Oh and I'm a liberal republican, a rare animal that didn't fall for Reagans' oligarchal bs.

joG said:

Partially true. I am not sure of what you want this to go, though.

Click to expand...

I believe this is where the entire left wing position on minimum wages utterly falls apart. I want liberals to realize the counterintuitive fact that hiking minimum wages actually shifts significantly more of the social burden for low-wage workers' needs to the poor, relative to if it were tax-funded welfare. This is what makes a progressive liberal's support for higher minimum wages irreconcilable with their actual core principles.

There has been a remarkable shift in the rhetoric coming out of the left wing. The progressive left, once ardent defenders of more generous welfare payments on the basis of need, have shifted their position to now attacking welfare as though it is a "corporate subsidy," pointing out that some people both work as well as receive welfare payments and benefits. In recent years they have been fueling their minimum wage obsession with these notions that employers should be required to pay wages adequate to meet the needs of their workers. The institutional left wing (liberal media, Democratic Party, unions, e.g.) has been pushing all sorts of propaganda along this storyline.

But the followers of progressive liberalism have been completely duped by this rhetoric, because they fail to realize that the money to pay for wage increases and mandated benefits do not come from equity owners' checkbooks, they come from operating revenues, i.e. the prices paid by the company's customers. It is no wonder all sorts of corporate interests support the progressive left wing message to try to force employers to pay more for the needs of the workers: it shifts the burden more toward the poor than if it were tax-funded. It's actually a regressive policy that takes burden off of the rich, compared to if these needs were met by tax-funded means.