Hacker News Reader

Comment by jusben1369 | Hacker News Reader

True. But it goes to a broader social issue. Should a family of 4 where one parent is employed full time by a large organization be earning below the poverty line. Was it like that 10/20/40 years ago. Where will it be in another 10 years? What's the impact on our social fabric.

At the micro level as a rationale economic player you in theory should make that determination. At the macro level it's our job to decide whether we want one income families to be below the poverty line and what are the broader implications of that.

View on HN

Yes. If that person is a cashier at Walmart. The value added by that employee is simply not that high. They shouldn't get paid more just because we don't want to be poor. If you only make 20k you shouldn't be having 2 kids. If you continue to make poor life decisions, the outcome is living below the poverty line.

Note, that I'm not against helping the poor. Charity is great, and helping people move up is great. Simply telling Walmart they should pay more for the same work is stupid. If you want to make more, you should provide more value.

> If you continue to make poor life decisions, the outcome is living below the poverty line.

What makes you think everyone who's poor got there from making poor decisions?

Just because someone says that A implies B, does not mean that any B you encounter was a consequence of an A.

That is, making poor life decisions will lead you to poverty, but that doesn't mean being in poverty meant you made poor life decisions, and that wasn't claimed AFAICS.

Didn't say that at all. I said if you make bad decisions you will get a bad outcome. I did not say everyone who has a bad outcome made bad decisions to get there. Subtle but important difference.

I think you're taking it for granted that people who have money deserve to be given money, and people who don't have money don't deserve handouts. Which is charity: giving a 1% rise in Walmart's profits to its shareholders, or giving that 1% rise in profits to its workers? What makes shareholders intrinsically more deserving of reward for the company's output than employees? Under what circumstances does Walmart giving money to people not qualify as charity? Why is it okay to legally compel Walmart to give shareholders money, but legally compelling Walmart to give its employees money is unfair to Walmart?

It's really bizarre to call paying people a fair wage charity.

That is a great response, and it really puts things into perspective.

If you're born a millionaire like Paris Hilton, and you capriciously decide to become a large shareholder of Walmart's stocks one day, you... well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything. Even though you're providing zero value to society you make a very large amount of money. In this way, not only is clarky07's profoundly and bizarrely misinformed, it is also selfish and offensive.

> well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything

I'll be the last to argue that we live in a meritocracy but in your example the capricious heir is in fact providing capital to the economy, taking on the risk that if that business fails the capital is gone.

Actually it's not zero value to society, and you don't just get to watch money roll in. It is providing capital to a business and it is full of risk. If the business fails then the money is gone. The markets play a valuable role in our economy. It is you that is misinformed.

That's true, but the fact remains that shareholders don't really get a larger share of profits than employees because they're more deserving. They get a larger share because they're in a position of power and the employees are powerless to secure a fair share.

Employees don't bear the same risks investors do. They earn their wages risk free, even if they don't generate enough value to justify their pay. They might lose their job, but you never come out of a job with less money than you came in with.

Investors wouldn't take risks if they couldn't reap rewards from them, which means workers wouldn't have the jobs either. The end result would be even less fair.

In any case, the modal investor isn't Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet, it's an ordinary working stiff trying to save for retirement in his 401k, or a pension fund for workers at other companies.

That's a strange way to look at the situation, when you consider the larger picture of a man's struggle in life.

Someone who's working at Walmart does not make a lot of money, they most likely cannot afford to give their children the best education, they cannot afford a reliable car, they're more at risk of failing to make the rent payment due to some unforeseen accident.

Someone who's in the financial position to be able to comfortably invest their money, or is otherwise a millionaire, even if they lose a good few hundred thousand dollars, it will not affect them much. At least, not as much to pose the question of if they'll be sleeping on their own comfy bed or in a homeless shelter.

When you say that people "deserve" minimum wage because that's all of the value they're providing to society, this is what you're talking about. You're talking about putting them in a very shakey position, you're talking about making them borderline-homeless.

If people can't earn enough to support themselves and their families, they should get help from the public. I don't want to see anyone borderline homeless. But it breaks the entire system to say employees should receive profits rather than shareholders when the company only exists, and only works, because shareholders are bearing the risks that the workers either can't afford to or choose not to.

And we're not just talking about millionaires bearing the risk, either. About half of Americans own stock one way or another.

>The value added by that employee is simply not that high.

The corporation would cease to function without them.

Paycheck is not a measure of value added. Most of the time it doesn't even correlate to value add.

No it wouldn't. There are literally billions of other people capable of doing that job.

While there are exceptions, on average a corporation would pay no more for a person than they think that person is worth, at that point it is better to close the business than continue to lose money.

But paychecks are also capped by the price of substitute goods, such as self-cleaning robots, self-checkout and other mechanical help, as well as alternatives like reduced hours or staff.

I guess the question is partly

"does the market value the work being done by that one wage earner enough to support a family?" and partly

"should the state step in and support a family when the market value of their labor is insufficient to support that family?"

And to what level is support needed?

No answers here, just questions.

One-income families of four are only below the poverty line if the sole income earner cannot produce enough value to support a family of four. The problem isn't that people are being exploited and underpaid for the work they do. Maybe it's that the education system has failed to produce more valuable workers: maybe it's that the value of (most) human labor has dipped so far that some level of basic income is necessary.

Nearly a quarter of the US population was officially in poverty in the 1950s. Doing unskilled work as a sole breadwinner with multiple children has always pretty much meant you would live in "poverty."

On a side note, a family of four making $20,000 will qualify for an additional $10,000 in EBT and EITC as well as free healthcare (Medicaid), bringing the wages paid by Walmart and Costco much closer together.

This. WalMart basically receives a huge public subsidy to underpay their employees in the form of welfare costs. Minimum wage and benefit laws try and shift those costs back to the employer.

yes your quite right in the UK I have no problem with paying for the NHS et all I do have a problem with subsidizing crap employers "jumped up fucking caterers" as John Clese memorably called them.

Well society could also refuse to offer those services, it isn't fair to blame WallMart for not paying their employees so they can afford to buy a good we have decided that they should enjoy.

And if Wal-Mart didn't exist, these people would have no jobs and require even more public assistance.

True, but we (society) wouldn't be much worse off than we are now. If Wal-Mart didn't exist, something else would exist to fill the gap, supply and demand must reach an equilibrium.

We should focus on helping people become self sustainable, not perpetually on the dole. Wal-Mart doesn't help here.

If it wasn't for Wal-Mart, there would be a Wal-Mart shaped niche in the economy and whatever filled it would look a lot like Wal-Mart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com