Are Companies Using Welfare Programs to Keep Their Workers Wages Low?

[peek-a-boo]

@Paul_Do

The US should tell them that they will no longer subsidize their employees and then they can try to make how much profits as they make.

Want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

An individual who has no skill set with no desire to acquire a skill set is hired by company x and is paid what a nonskilled worker is worth. That unskilled worker gets married and has a child. The wife chooses to stay home and care for the child. In order to survive that family depends heavily on government assistance.

Are you saying that the government should stop that assistance, expecting company x will step in and pay that worker an inflated wage?

Surely you must realize that company x would never do that. What becomes of that worker and his family? Me personally, I believe the individual should have acquired a skill set so that he could earn a decent living. I also believe Company x has no obligation to pay someone more than they are worth. But I’m not heartless.

[Guilds]

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@peek-a-boo

In earlier thread we ventured off topic, but raised some interesting points regarding the wealthy and how they exploited taxpayer safety net programs to keep wages low.

@Paul_Do raised some interesting points and provided the link below to support his arguments. I thought it would be a good topic for discussion and suggested we start a new thread dedicated to the topic.

I’ve got some thoughts which I will articulate in a follow-up post, but would like to hear you thoughts as well.

Some questions I’m looking to have answered? Is the argument regarding the rich exploiting these programs real, or is it just more LW class warfare rhetoric? What would the employee - employer landscape look like without these government safety nets?

I look forward to a lively discussion and welcome your opinions.

Millions of American adults who earn low wages rely on federal programs to meet basic needs, such as Medicaid for health care and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for food.

Federal Social Safety Net Programs: Millions of Full-Time Workers Rely on Federal Health Care and Food Assistance Programs (gao.gov)

Tangential to this, Google The Great Resignation and read some of the articles… People are currently quitting their jobs in record numbers, especially in the service industry.

Restaurants and such are being forced to raise wages and offer other benefits in order to attract new workers. Wages $15 an hour and up are not uncommon. The kicker? They are still having critical shortages in people willing to take the jobs.

[peek-a-boo]

3 posts in this thread and 3 opportunities to recite LW rhetoric. I’m guessing I should at least compliment you on your accuracy. Great job!

[DisturbedGuy]

@peek-a-boo

@Eagle-Keeper

It’s largely of a function if they have children or not. The overwhelming majority of working single adults get little to no government assistance. There was a statistic I posted in another thread basically demonstrating that the number of children a person has is inversely proportional to income. In the US for those who have children the poorer a person is the more children they have.

That kind of goes back to my point about low skilled workers looking to raise a family without having any skills rather than looking to gain the skills required to make a decent living.

The low skilled workers used to be able to get decent manufacturing/union job that paid a wage you could raise a family on. The jobs that replaced those, the service industry, needs to pay the same wage.

[peek-a-boo]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Tangential to this, Google The Great Resignation and read some of the articles… People are currently quitting their jobs in record numbers, especially in the service industry.

Restaurants and such are being forced to raise wages and offer other benefits in order to attract new workers. Wages $15 an hour and up are not uncommon. The kicker? They are still having critical shortages in people willing to take the jobs.

Been watching that as well. Ironically the law of supply and demand is in play here. Companies need workers and will need to pay what is necessary to attract those workers. Those holding out might eventually get an offer they can’t refuse.

[peek-a-boo]

@DisturbedGuy

The low skilled workers used to be able to get decent manufacturing/union job that paid a wage you could raise a family on. The jobs that replaced those, the service industry, needs to pay the same wage.

You’ve kind of got it backwards. The best way for someone to make a decent living is to acquire a skill. Companies are under no obligation to pay inflated wages to low skilled workers that are in great supply; nor should they be.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@peek-a-boo

@Supreme_War_Pig

Tangential to this, Google The Great Resignation and read some of the articles… People are currently quitting their jobs in record numbers, especially in the service industry.

Restaurants and such are being forced to raise wages and offer other benefits in order to attract new workers. Wages $15 an hour and up are not uncommon. The kicker? They are still having critical shortages in people willing to take the jobs.

Been watching that as well. Ironically the law of supply and demand is in play here. Companies need workers and will need to pay what is necessary to attract those workers. Those holding out might eventually get an offer they can’t refuse.

Eventually.

Some will get education or more education. I think this is a good thing, but I do worry about inflationary pressure.

[Guilds]

@peek-a-boo

LW rhetoric

AKA, truth.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@peek-a-boo

@Eagle-Keeper

It’s largely of a function if they have children or not. The overwhelming majority of working single adults get little to no government assistance. There was a statistic I posted in another thread basically demonstrating that the number of children a person has is inversely proportional to income. In the US for those who have children the poorer a person is the more children they have.
[/quote]

That kind of goes back to my point about low skilled workers looking to raise a family without having any skills rather than looking to gain the skills required to make a decent living.

The low skilled workers used to be able to get decent manufacturing/union job that paid a wage you could raise a family on. The jobs that replaced those, the service industry, needs to pay the same wage.

Or maybe the answer is to get oneself into a better economic situation before having a child. Most people I know who have kids are waiting until their mid thirties, forties and I even know men who waited until they were 50! There are good paying jobs out there that do not require a college degree.

[DisturbedGuy]

@peek-a-boo

@DisturbedGuy

The low skilled workers used to be able to get decent manufacturing/union job that paid a wage you could raise a family on. The jobs that replaced those, the service industry, needs to pay the same wage.

You’ve kind of got it backwards. The best way for someone to make a decent living is to acquire a skill. Companies are under no obligation to pay inflated wages to low skilled workers that are in great supply; nor should they be.

No they aren’t…that is why the industry is struggling to find employees willing to accept their low wages.

[DisturbedGuy]

@Eagle-Keeper

@peek-a-boo

@Eagle-Keeper

It’s largely of a function if they have children or not. The overwhelming majority of working single adults get little to no government assistance. There was a statistic I posted in another thread basically demonstrating that the number of children a person has is inversely proportional to income. In the US for those who have children the poorer a person is the more children they have.
[/quote]

That kind of goes back to my point about low skilled workers looking to raise a family without having any skills rather than looking to gain the skills required to make a decent living.

The low skilled workers used to be able to get decent manufacturing/union job that paid a wage you could raise a family on. The jobs that replaced those, the service industry, needs to pay the same wage.

Or maybe the answer is to get oneself into a better economic situation before having a child. Most people I know who have kids are waiting until their mid thirties, forties and I even know men who waited until they were 50! There are good paying jobs out there that do not require a college degree.

Not enough supply to fill the demand.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

We know that low skill workers in some industries are getting government assistance. Nothing in dispute there. But would it be a leap to say that taxpayers are indirectly picking up the tab for wages that should be paid by employers?

no. We the taxpayers are making sure walmart employees are fed, and have housing…

The costs of those basic requirements should be bourne by the customers of walmart, not the tax base in general.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

That is the million dollar question. How would those barely scraping by survive without federal assistance?

I’ve got a few thoughts.

I’ve been arguing for years that low skilled jobs are entry level temporary jobs targeting those just starting out. Typically ones first job fresh out of high school and looking to obtain valuable skills in a technical school or college. Those jobs were never meant to be permanent career choices.

Unfortunately more than a few did in fact decide to remain in those low skill jobs and raise a family. Obviously there was a wide gap in what employers could afford to pay and what a family needed to survive.

Government provided a solution with their safety net programs.

I don’t think 40yo people just decided to stay stocking shelves at walmart. In many regions of the country, those are the only jobs availible.

We know what america looks like without safety nets and worker protection - the Gilded age. And we know hat america looks like with strong unions, a relevant minimum wage and strong federal worker support - the 50’s and 60’s.

Decide which you prefer and support the relevant policies.

[tnt]

@TheDoctorIsIn

It’s not the executives that are making all the money, it’s the shareholders. Or, to be more accurate, the Waltons.

and the executives. Exec. pay is always linked to share value.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

Walmart is a publicly traded company. As a shareholder are you saying I am not entitled to maximize my stock shares?

then your OP is moot. Current legislation allows corps like walmart to allow taxpayers to subsidize their work force and maximize shareholder value.

[tnt]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The executives are just more workers, albeit better-paid ones.

walmart executives are heavily invested in the corp.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

You’ve lost me. I asked a simple question. Who gets to decide how much profit a company is entitled to?

What does that have to do with your question? But in answer to your question, a nonprofitable company can’t survive for very long.

This is a good thread, and I hope we can have honest and open conversation.

IMO, who decides is the basic minimum standard of living.

I think if an american works 40 hours a week, they should be paid such that they can rent (or own) a place to live, feed and cloth their spouse and a kid - maybe 2? I don’t know… – and take a modest vacation every year.

IMO, the customers and clients of the business they work for should pay for this.

IOW, I advocate for the 50s (less the racism). a minimum wage that means something, stronger unions, stronger federal worker protections, lower Exec/labor wage ratios (admitting I don’t know how that is achieved in this world now.).

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

So then we are in agreement that no one should be able to tell a company how much profit they can make?

I agree with that.

But no corp should expect the taxpayer base to fund their work force.

[tnt]

@DisturbedGuy

The low skilled workers used to be able to get decent manufacturing/union job that paid a wage you could raise a family on. The jobs that replaced those, the service industry, needs to pay the same wage.

Correct.