|
|
|
|
|
|
by s73v3r_
2839 days ago
|
|
|
It is a labor subsidy, because Wal-Mart is not having to pay their workers a living wage because they can simply tell their workers to sign up for public assistance. I don't care about the nit-picky "Is it a direct labor subsidy or is it a wage subsidy" arguments; Wal-Mart benefits because they can pay lower wages and tell their employees to get public assistance. That's the story in its entirety. Wal-Mart is big enough, they can pay a living wage; they don't need my help. |
|
|
No, it's not, it's an anti-subsidy, because money is taken away from workers for getting paid by an employer, increasing the amount an employer needs to pay.
> because Wal-Mart is not having to pay their workers a living wage
WalMart wouldn't have to pay a living wage without it, either. Public assistance programs (aside from work requirements and the cost of lost benefits from failure to comply) actually increase market clearing wages, they don't decrease them.
> because they can simply tell their workers to sign up for public assistance
The people involved can sign up for public assistance with or without working for WalMart; further, they lose benefits due to mean testing based on outside income, which means WalMart has to give them >$1 of take home pay to get labor they would be willing to trade for $1 of net income increase.