|
|
|
|
|
|
by s73v3r_
2839 days ago
|
|
|
"If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem." I fail to see how they're not. Wal-Mart is entirely, 10,000% responsible for how much they pay their workers. "I mean, if the economy is so depressed in a region that the absolute best some job seekers are able to get is a job that requires them to remain on public assistance then obviously the employer isn't to blame for the region's economy." That employer, especially when they are one of the largest companies in the nation, is entirely to blame for how much they pay their workers. "Where does it make any sense to go after them instead of doing something to fix the economy and improve the lives and conditions available to those workers?" Who says you can't do both? But why on earth does it seem acceptable that the job conditions are based on how good the economy is? Why is it suddenly acceptable to treat your workers like crap if some GDP number goes down by a quarter of a point? |
|
|
Yes, but the public is largely responsible for how little of what they allocate to pay gets to employees, by way of the fact that wages are taxed higher than regular income (because payroll taxes) which in turn is taxed higher than capital gains, which in turn are taxed higher than most unearned generational wealth transfer (thanks to the generous nontaxed allowances for gifts and inheritances.)
Tax income as income and at the same overall tax level, very few WalMart employees would need public assistance and employers would have a lot less incentive to replace employees that must be purchased with supertaxed wages with minimally-tax-burdened capital investments.
Right now, the tax rate on any kind of income varies inversely with the wealth of the people who tend to have that kind of income.