By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 08 July 2012
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
Pyro as Bill said:
Government works = threatening people with fine/imprisonment ie coercion works.

Nothing new about this.

And then reallocating that which was obtained through such threats to others who benefit.  For those on the receiving end of the reallocation, it works fine.   Also, it works for people who want to limit others from doing things.  And I didn't post anywhere in my initial post (I don't believe I did) that how this works is desirable, just that it works for those who successfully use it.  And it is because it works that it draws people to use it more.

People who receive the "reallocation" are not fine with it though ...

Individuals who are on food stamps would prefer to earn more money rather than take a handout but they can't find better paying jobs because programs like food-stamps act as a massive subsidy to companies who pay their employees poorly.

Henry Ford was well known in part because he paid his empoyees far more than the competition to attract the best employees, and he reduced costs through increased productivity rather than reducing labour costs. Suppose (for argument sake) that people still believe in these concepts and would gladly pay their employees twice as much if it resulted in more than twice as much product being produced. When the government subsidizes their lower wage paying competitors by providing food stamps and rental subsidies and has "progressive taxes" that disproportionately impact his employees when he pays them more how much more does he have to pay his employees in order to double their real wage?

What makes you think that, if you got rid of food stamps, suddenly employers would pay more?  Supply and demand gets wages.  Why do you think, minus food stamps that suddenly employers would get generous?   Unless there was a sudden organizing of workers into unions who collectively go on strike, to drive up wages, because they would put pressure on employers to pay appropriately.

How employees live has little to no correlation with how they are paid.  Other factors do, like supply. Less welfare won't end up turning this around, unless the pay is so low people won't take it.  Why do you think otherwise?

By the way, I won't argue with you that it is a subsidy.  It is a subsidy, just like student loans are.  It is just that removal of such subsidies won't end up meaning employees get paid more.  And also, I know food stamps and stuff sucks.  I am currently on them.  I would rather be getting cash, and using money for more constructive things, but it is what I qualify for, so I use things on food.  It helps.

By eliminating food stamps you wouldn't see employeers suddenly pay more, especially in the current economy, but over time you would see an increase in what people earned ...

You would (essentially) see what happens in the market where there are not governmental subsidies. Software developers in my city earn anywhere from $40,000 per year to (over) $120,000 per year. The companies that pay wages at the low end of the scale are always looking for employees because their employees only stay with them until they can find something better and few people apply for the job because they've built a (bad) reputation. In contrast, the companies that pay well usually fill jobs quickly and have the pick of the litter of what's available in the city because everyone wants to work for them.

I have no doubt that there would still be people paying crap in the absence of food stamps, but companies who wanted to attract reliable hard working employees would pay more; and the average "Family man/woman" would probably earn (roughly) as much without food stamps as they did with food stamps.