GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - If Walmart Paid Its Employees a Living Wage, How Much Would Prices Go Up?

bhutocracy · 04-06-2014, 08:45 PM

It would be a different story if taxpayers weren't subsidizing lowly paid employees. You shouldn't be able to earn a comfortable wage at a low skilled Walmart job, but you should be able to survive without government support and that crappy feeling of living paycheck to paycheck with no frills (but also no food stamps or tax payer help) should propel those who want more to work harder or smarter. I support a rise in the wage to whatever that level is otherwise it's essentially just a government handout to Walmart.

I pay a much higher minimum wage to my employees. Over the last decade some business ideas haven't worked out that would probably have been profitable at lower wages.. But if a business requires $4/hr to work then maybe it's simply not a valid business concept and a distortion of the market to subsidize it with food stamps.

There would have to be very significant geo-socio-political benefits to subsidizing a business unable to pay a living wage before it should be considered. Maybe, say, energy production - oil drilling etc which allows the whole economy to grow on cheap fuel and is cheaper than foreign wars to secure oil contracts. Maybe a scheme to help employ the disabled or whatever where the government still saves money vs having them on a disabled pension. There are no doubt exceptions, and I'm aware industry often seeks subsidies by waving potential jobs in front of politicians.. even the movie industry. But it shouldn't be a function of the government to distort the market that way, even if mandating a shitty-but-requires-no-government-help wage is another kind of distortion. It at least has a multiplier consumption effect which increases the tax base given all the income from an increased minimum wage is going to be spent straight away on goods and services.
Although there are jobs the market could probably price at $2/hr, I would prefer a society where I don't have to live in a gated community to keep the great unwashed zombie hordes at bay.

I like Henry Ford's take on it, where he wanted to pay his workers enough that they could buy one of his cars and therefore create customers though demand side economics. Every business I've ever started has employed people based on current demand for work outstripping ability to supply or potential demand threatening to.

04-06-2014, 08:45 PM
bhutocracy Not making A Comeback Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 10,218	It would be a different story if taxpayers weren't subsidizing lowly paid employees. You shouldn't be able to earn a comfortable wage at a low skilled Walmart job, but you should be able to survive without government support and that crappy feeling of living paycheck to paycheck with no frills (but also no food stamps or tax payer help) should propel those who want more to work harder or smarter. I support a rise in the wage to whatever that level is otherwise it's essentially just a government handout to Walmart. I pay a much higher minimum wage to my employees. Over the last decade some business ideas haven't worked out that would probably have been profitable at lower wages.. But if a business requires $4/hr to work then maybe it's simply not a valid business concept and a distortion of the market to subsidize it with food stamps. There would have to be very significant geo-socio-political benefits to subsidizing a business unable to pay a living wage before it should be considered. Maybe, say, energy production - oil drilling etc which allows the whole economy to grow on cheap fuel and is cheaper than foreign wars to secure oil contracts. Maybe a scheme to help employ the disabled or whatever where the government still saves money vs having them on a disabled pension. There are no doubt exceptions, and I'm aware industry often seeks subsidies by waving potential jobs in front of politicians.. even the movie industry. But it shouldn't be a function of the government to distort the market that way, even if mandating a shitty-but-requires-no-government-help wage is another kind of distortion. It at least has a multiplier consumption effect which increases the tax base given all the income from an increased minimum wage is going to be spent straight away on goods and services. Although there are jobs the market could probably price at $2/hr, I would prefer a society where I don't have to live in a gated community to keep the great unwashed zombie hordes at bay. I like Henry Ford's take on it, where he wanted to pay his workers enough that they could buy one of his cars and therefore create customers though demand side economics. Every business I've ever started has employed people based on current demand for work outstripping ability to supply or potential demand threatening to.