Hacker News Reader

smm2000

People making more than 76k/year (~20% of workers in US) subsidize Walmart workers. Most people making less than 76k are getting subsidized - as they should be. I would prefer people doing productive work in Walmart getting subsidized than subsidizing people watching TV at home.

View on HN

Right. But the part you are leaving out is that the children of Walmart's founder are among the richest people in the history of the world. We are subsidizing their wealth.

So increase the tax on Walmart, Walmart's founders, and the rest of their shareholders, and rich people in general. Raising wages at Walmart (or the minimum wage across the board) is a terribly inefficient solution to wealth inequality.

Well, that's one point of view, but I disagree. Subsidizing the wealth of ultra-rich people...and then trying to recoup it by increasing their taxes seems much more inefficient.

Not to mention much easier to remove with some strategic campaign donations.

At best, raising the minimum wage results in a transfer of wealth from middle class people to poor people. Rich people don't spend any significant part of their money on the products of minimum wage labour.

At worst, it would result in unemployment and recession.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com