Humans aren't like ec2 servers that can be spun down when they're needed. The cost for that person is paid whether or not he's employed. I agree there's an additional cost to show up to work, but that's nowhere near the minimum wage in most places.
And are you arguing we simply must pay the costs for people to exist? I agree given not existing is very highly undesirable.
Employed people, getting a subsidy so their employer enjoys greater profit makes sense how? Should a for profit enterprise earn it? Why is our help required?
If they really cannot afford their labor, they are not a viable business.
Or, we all agree to not care, so we end all the fucking with people on assistance?
Which is it?
To be really clear, I'm OK either way here. What I am not OK with is so damn many people underpaid and struggling hard with assistance despite arguably too much labor otherwise.
I don't get it. Subsidizing someone's living is okay, but subsidizing someone's living, and then that person deciding to earn a little more money is not okay because profit is involved?
>And are you arguing we simply must pay the costs for people to exist? I agree given not existing is very highly undesirable.
Yes? If you don't want them to starve, then obviously somebody as to pay the cost to keep those people afloat.
>Employed people, getting a subsidy so their employer enjoys greater profit makes sense how? Should a for profit enterprise earn it? Why is our help required?
Would society be better off if those "Employed people, getting a subsidy" were unemployed instead? They'll still get the subsidy. If anything, they'll get more subsidy because welfare tends to be means tested. If anything the "for profit enterprise" has a negative effect on the amount of subsidy that needs to be paid.
> What I am not OK with is so damn many people underpaid and struggling hard with assistance
Underpaid? Maybe they're being paid fairly given the market conditions, and that prevailing wage isn't enough to sustain someone's first world existence so some sort of subsidy has to make up the rest.
> despite arguably too much labor otherwise.
can you reword this? I'm not understanding what you mean by this.
That is gaming the system, mooching off the public dime for profit.
Maybe that helps.
I am not going to respond on this topic again. It has been fun, but I do need to move on.
Employees are working yet still they need government assistance to offset the low wages. Walmart knows this and one might argue they incorporate in their business planning. Why pay employees to work full time, when you can pay them part time, reduce your labor costs and have the state pick up the rest of the expenses (i.e. medicare, Foodstamps)
Walmart executive's know this is a win/win for them, they get the labor they need and pay little for it. This is not something that just happened overnight. It's corporate greed on a massive scale that hurts everyone but no one cares because Wallstreet see's the profits rolling in.
Deceptive businesses like Walmart are consistently fucking us all, and nothing is done about it. The tax breaks they receive are enabling this behavior.
End rant.
but the thing is, that person is going to be around regardless of he's working at walmart or not. unless you're okay with the guy starving to death because he's unemployed, you'll still need to pay foodstamps or whatever to keep him alive. I'm not sure why that person deciding to voluntarily work at walmart, suddenly makes the entirety of his living expenses walmart's problem.
Put another way, suppose someone is unemployed and living off government assistance. I learn about his predicament, and offer to pay him $10 (or whatever) to mow my lawn. What you basically want is for this transaction to be stopped, on the grounds that $10 isn't enough to keep him alive, and therefore I'm exploiting him. You'd rather the person stay unemployed, and have me keep that $10, even though that's worse off for everyone involved.
>Deceptive businesses like Walmart are consistently fucking us all
I fail to see how anyone is being deceived here. I can see why you might think this is bad, because walmart has a duty to their employees or whatever, but not really deception.