Corporate Moochers - how to spot them

[Canard DuJour]

It does not subsidize viability of businesses, because the requirement that businesses have to "pay their own way" by taking responsibility for the entirety of their employees' living costs (and not just the externalities) is a fallacy. Your math only shows that all the businesses in a society have to pay enough that the living costs of every member of that society are covered (or else that society will go down the crapper real quick). It doesn't follow that businesses have to pay out every employee's living costs individually; the first condition can be met even if the costs are distributed.

Costs thus distributed ARE subsidised. It's what 'subsidised' means. The idea that their viability isn't subsidised because their costs are subsidised is just nonsense.

It is not a subsidy to the employer because that cost is not the responsibility of the employer to begin with.

Hang on, you've just acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the employer. "The employer" means employers as a group. If you mean not the legal obligation of a given individual employer, that doesn't mean he's not subsidised by others. While his employees are fed, housed etc, he must be.

Whether it is a subsidy to someone else is irrelevant to this discussion.

Indeed.

 

[Togo]

I am not saying that business A should have to pay the expenses of business B. The living costs of a person aren't an expense of either business, they are a cost that society as a whole has to be able to cover somehow;

How?

A society's income comes from economic activity. Economic activity is organised into businesses. Unless you are invoking magic pixies, any argument that business B should have it's expenses met by 'society as a whole' is simply passing to the cost onto business A. There isn't any other source of income.

what I'm saing is that the mere coincidence that company B happens to employ a person is not a rational basis to dump the entirety of that person's living costs to company B.

Now, as for your first point that it's bad to be burdening business plans that have different kind of salary structure, consider for example wall street financial companies who have very few highly paid employees, and make obscene profits.

Poor example, because they're also mooches, in that they offload their systemic risks onto the taxpayer in the form of government guarentees around their business model. But a more sensible example of a highly paid company, say an architecture firm where you have employees who are all well paid, they're more valuable to society than a minimum wage sweatshop, employee for employee because they provide more value add to the economy. Their contribution to society is higher.

Why do you think that these companies are superior or more desirable to have than, say, factories, shops or restaurants?

They aren't particularly. A modern factory may employ hundreds if not thousands of skilled or semi-skilled people, and contribute far more to the economy both in terms of value add and in terms of wages paid than a glass office with a handful of overpaid financial execs. The factory also offers more training, and does more to lift unskilled labourers out of poverty, than the wall street firm does.

The mistake you're making is assuming that the alternative to WallMart paying below minimum wage is unemployment.

It's not only about Wal-Mart that has a profit margin to be viable anyway, but also marginal businesses who don't have that luxury.

If that really is the issue, then there is no reason why you wouldn't agree that WallMart is being a mooch. Then we can deal with those other businesses separately.

Walmart is not being a mooch (in terms of their low salaries anyway) because those costs aren't Walmart's problem. Walmart is adding some cost (such as cost of daily comunute, including use of public infrasturcture, higher likelihood of getting sick or injured on the job, higher calories requirements to stay alive, etc. etc.) but those costs are only a fraction of a "living wage".

But they're also consuming their employee's labour, which is the entirety of what they have to sell. A well-run society does sell it's resources at below the cost of their maintenance, or else, as you said, the society goes down the crapper.

Absent some kind of debt financing or equally unsustainable fudge, and assuming no magic pixies, Wallmart's employees are being paid from taxes levied from other companies. Please explain why this is a good idea?

 

[Jayjay]

It does not subsidize viability of businesses, because the requirement that businesses have to "pay their own way" by taking responsibility for the entirety of their employees' living costs (and not just the externalities) is a fallacy. Your math only shows that all the businesses in a society have to pay enough that the living costs of every member of that society are covered (or else that society will go down the crapper real quick). It doesn't follow that businesses have to pay out every employee's living costs individually; the first condition can be met even if the costs are distributed.

Costs thus distributed ARE subsidised. It's what 'subsidised' means. The idea that their viability isn't subsidised because their costs are subsidised is just nonsense.

It is not a subsidy to the employer because that cost is not the responsibility of the employer to begin with.

Hang on, you've just acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the employer. "The employer" means employers as a group. If you mean not the legal obligation of a given individual employer, that doesn't mean he's not subsidised by others. While his employees are fed, housed etc, he must be.

If I had meant employers as a group, I would have said so. Besides, if it was a group, then redistribution within that group wouldn't be a subsidy either so trying to shift the goal posts doesn't really help your argument.

Naturally the costs created by the employer should be paid by the employer, nobody is arguing against that. If I hire someone to dump toxic waste to nearby lake, then of course I should be the one who's responsible for cleaning it up, to use an extreme example. But how does my paying someone to do a task make me responsible for paying his electricity bills or kids tuition or a yacht or whatever other costs he might incur to society?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not a subsidy to the employer because that cost is not the responsibility of the employer to begin with.

Hang on, you've just acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the employer. "The employer" means employers as a group. If you mean not the legal obligation of a given individual employer, that doesn't mean he's not subsidised by others. While his employees are fed, housed etc, he must be. [/QUOTE]

This reads like 1984.

Welfare is the responsibility of the government. If a subsidy is needed it should come from the government.

 

[Jayjay]

How?

A society's income comes from economic activity. Economic activity is organised into businesses. Unless you are invoking magic pixies, any argument that business B should have it's expenses met by 'society as a whole' is simply passing to the cost onto business A. There isn't any other source of income.

All of society's income may come from economic activity, but not all of its costs. People live, consume, and procreate anyway - there are expenses that aren't caused by any particular business. Passing that cost to business B is no different from passing it to business A, or both.

what I'm saing is that the mere coincidence that company B happens to employ a person is not a rational basis to dump the entirety of that person's living costs to company B.

Now, as for your first point that it's bad to be burdening business plans that have different kind of salary structure, consider for example wall street financial companies who have very few highly paid employees, and make obscene profits.

Poor example, because they're also mooches, in that they offload their systemic risks onto the taxpayer in the form of government guarentees around their business model. But a more sensible example of a highly paid company, say an architecture firm where you have employees who are all well paid, they're more valuable to society than a minimum wage sweatshop, employee for employee because they provide more value add to the economy. Their contribution to society is higher.

If a single architect adds 100 times more value to the economy than a sweatshop worker, but the sweatshop has 100 times more employees than the architecture firm, the added value of both of those businesses is the same.

Walmart is not being a mooch (in terms of their low salaries anyway) because those costs aren't Walmart's problem. Walmart is adding some cost (such as cost of daily comunute, including use of public infrasturcture, higher likelihood of getting sick or injured on the job, higher calories requirements to stay alive, etc. etc.) but those costs are only a fraction of a "living wage".

But they're also consuming their employee's labour, which is the entirety of what they have to sell. A well-run society does sell it's resources at below the cost of their maintenance, or else, as you said, the society goes down the crapper.

Walmart doesn't use the entirety of their employee's labor, only a limited portion that they have agreed to pay for. If the person has nothing else to sell, it's not a problem caused by Walmart. Some individuals by combination of genetic lottery, upbringing, and pure luck end up being architects whose labor is worth considerably more than their cost of living, and some individuals end up falling below the line entirely. The latter group would be where they are regardless of whether they happen to get a job at Walmart or not.

Absent some kind of debt financing or equally unsustainable fudge, and assuming no magic pixies, Wallmart's employees are being paid from taxes levied from other companies. Please explain why this is a good idea?

It's better than the alternatives:

1. Not paying Walmart employees, but paying the unemployed, from taxes levied from other companies (or individuals) incentivizes people to be unemployed, even if Walmart were to raise their wages somewhat.
2. Not paying anyone from taxes levied from companies would have people starving to death or resorting to crimes and other desperate methods to avoid it and that's not good for society either.
3. Forcing Walmart to adopt its employees and become responsible for their entire livelihoods while every other company who refused to hire them get a free pass is unfair and puts an unnecessary burden on Walmart.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It does not subsidize viability of businesses, because the requirement that businesses have to "pay their own way" by taking responsibility for the entirety of their employees' living costs (and not just the externalities) is a fallacy. Your math only shows that all the businesses in a society have to pay enough that the living costs of every member of that society are covered (or else that society will go down the crapper real quick). It doesn't follow that businesses have to pay out every employee's living costs individually; the first condition can be met even if the costs are distributed.

Costs thus distributed ARE subsidised. It's what 'subsidised' means. The idea that their viability isn't subsidised because their costs are subsidised is just nonsense.

It is not a subsidy to the employer because that cost is not the responsibility of the employer to begin with.

Hang on, you've just acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the employer. "The employer" means employers as a group. If you mean not the legal obligation of a given individual employer, that doesn't mean he's not subsidised by others. While his employees are fed, housed etc, he must be.

If I had meant employers as a group, I would have said so.

You did, if inadvertently. It's what "the employer" (or the tax payer or the motorist etc) is generally understood to mean where no specific employer (or whatever) has been identified. FYI.

Besides, if it was a group, then redistribution within that group wouldn't be a subsidy either so trying to shift the goal posts doesn't really help your argument.

Of course it'd be a subsidy. If one baker pays toward the flour another can't or wont buy, that's one baker subsidising another. Ditto labour, except via gov't redistribution.

Naturally the costs created by the employer should be paid by the employer, nobody is arguing against that. If I hire someone to dump toxic waste to nearby lake, then of course I should be the one who's responsible for cleaning it up, to use an extreme example. But how does my paying someone to do a task make me responsible for paying his electricity bills or kids tuition or a yacht or whatever other costs he might incur to society?

With the possible exception of electricity, it doesn't.

 

[Canard DuJour]

]Hang on, you've just acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the employer. "The employer" means employers as a group. If you mean not the legal obligation of a given individual employer, that doesn't mean he's not subsidised by others. While his employees are fed, housed etc, he must be.

This reads like 1984.

Not to people who've read it.

Welfare is the responsibility of the government.

which remains irrelevant

If a subsidy is needed it should come from the government.

It can't come from gov't in a market economy. Gov't can only redistribute what comes from other productive enterprises (ones which can actually afford employees).

 

[Jayjay]

Besides, if it was a group, then redistribution within that group wouldn't be a subsidy either so trying to shift the goal posts doesn't really help your argument.

Of course it'd be a subsidy. If one baker pays toward the flour another can't or wont buy, that's one baker subsidising another. Ditto labour, except via gov't redistribution.

Again you missed the point. I was referring to your misreading of "the employer" meaning all employers. If one baker pays for the flour of another baker, it is not a subsidy to the group of all the bakers. So even if I had meant all employers, you'd still have missed the mark.

Naturally the costs created by the employer should be paid by the employer, nobody is arguing against that. If I hire someone to dump toxic waste to nearby lake, then of course I should be the one who's responsible for cleaning it up, to use an extreme example. But how does my paying someone to do a task make me responsible for paying his electricity bills or kids tuition or a yacht or whatever other costs he might incur to society?

With the possible exception of electricity, it doesn't.

Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

 

[Underseer]

[...]
Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

You seem to be missing the point.

If someone has a full time job, they should have enough to buy food (at least enough to not die of starvation) and pay a modest electric bill (at least enough to cover heating so that they don't die during the winter).

Why should I the taxpayer become obligated to pay the food bills and heating bills of someone with a full time job? Why is it my responsibility to pad the profits of some corporation just because they don't feel like paying their employees enough to live? The tax dollars I spend on food programs and heating programs (which generally involves paying electric bills) is to save the lives of people who can't get those things on their own, but now we are in the absurd position that people with full time jobs need this kind of help just because a large number of corporations want to pad their profit margins with handouts that come from my tax dollars.

 

[Jayjay]

[...]
Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

You seem to be missing the point.

If someone has a full time job, they should have enough to buy food (at least enough to not die of starvation) and pay a modest electric bill (at least enough to cover heating so that they don't die during the winter).

While people who don't have fulltime jobs shouldn't?

Why should I the taxpayer become obligated to pay the food bills and heating bills of someone with a full time job? Why is it my responsibility to pad the profits of some corporation just because they don't feel like paying their employees enough to live? The tax dollars I spend on food programs and heating programs (which generally involves paying electric bills) is to save the lives of people who can't get those things on their own, but now we are in the absurd position that people with full time jobs need this kind of help just because a large number of corporations want to pad their profit margins with handouts that come from my tax dollars.

I don't think people with full-time jobs require any less than people who can't (or won't) have a full-time job. The money they receive from our tax dollars isn't used to pad the profit margins of their employees - unless there is a requirement to work to receive the benefit, which I think is insane. Your tax dollars go to supporting the needy person individually, with or without a full-time job.

I don't think it's my business to judge people based on their employment situation. When a company hires a person at a fair market wage, at least he's given some income, as opposed to the companies that refused to hire him who pay him nothing.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Besides, if it was a group, then redistribution within that group wouldn't be a subsidy either so trying to shift the goal posts doesn't really help your argument.

Of course it'd be a subsidy. If one baker pays toward the flour another can't or wont buy, that's one baker subsidising another. Ditto labour, except via gov't redistribution.

Again you missed the point. I was referring to your misreading of "the employer" meaning all employers. If one baker pays for the flour of another baker, it is not a subsidy to the group of all the bakers. So even if I had meant all employers, you'd still have missed the mark.

Not at all. No one's saying all employers are subsided, just those paying below living costs.

Naturally the costs created by the employer should be paid by the employer, nobody is arguing against that. If I hire someone to dump toxic waste to nearby lake, then of course I should be the one who's responsible for cleaning it up, to use an extreme example. But how does my paying someone to do a task make me responsible for paying his electricity bills or kids tuition or a yacht or whatever other costs he might incur to society?

With the possible exception of electricity, it doesn't.

Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

What Underseer said.

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

Because neither a decent society nor the upkeep of the labourer require yachts.

 

[Jayjay]

Besides, if it was a group, then redistribution within that group wouldn't be a subsidy either so trying to shift the goal posts doesn't really help your argument.

Of course it'd be a subsidy. If one baker pays toward the flour another can't or wont buy, that's one baker subsidising another. Ditto labour, except via gov't redistribution.

Again you missed the point. I was referring to your misreading of "the employer" meaning all employers. If one baker pays for the flour of another baker, it is not a subsidy to the group of all the bakers. So even if I had meant all employers, you'd still have missed the mark.

Not at all. No one's saying all employers are subsided, just those paying below living costs.

Which is why your interpreting "the employer" to mean all employers as a group made absolutely no sense in context.

Naturally the costs created by the employer should be paid by the employer, nobody is arguing against that. If I hire someone to dump toxic waste to nearby lake, then of course I should be the one who's responsible for cleaning it up, to use an extreme example. But how does my paying someone to do a task make me responsible for paying his electricity bills or kids tuition or a yacht or whatever other costs he might incur to society?

With the possible exception of electricity, it doesn't.

Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

What Underseer said.

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

Because neither a decent society nor the upkeep of the labourer require yachts.

Yet, for some reason you don't think it's fair to take a bit more from people who have yachts and give it to people who struggle with electricity bills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[...]
Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

You seem to be missing the point.

If someone has a full time job, they should have enough to buy food (at least enough to not die of starvation) and pay a modest electric bill (at least enough to cover heating so that they don't die during the winter).

Why should I the taxpayer become obligated to pay the food bills and heating bills of someone with a full time job? Why is it my responsibility to pad the profits of some corporation just because they don't feel like paying their employees enough to live? The tax dollars I spend on food programs and heating programs (which generally involves paying electric bills) is to save the lives of people who can't get those things on their own, but now we are in the absurd position that people with full time jobs need this kind of help just because a large number of corporations want to pad their profit margins with handouts that come from my tax dollars.

This is still repeating the same mistake of assuming that business is responsible for welfare.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Besides, if it was a group, then redistribution within that group wouldn't be a subsidy either so trying to shift the goal posts doesn't really help your argument.

Of course it'd be a subsidy. If one baker pays toward the flour another can't or wont buy, that's one baker subsidising another. Ditto labour, except via gov't redistribution.

Again you missed the point. I was referring to your misreading of "the employer" meaning all employers. If one baker pays for the flour of another baker, it is not a subsidy to the group of all the bakers. So even if I had meant all employers, you'd still have missed the mark.

Not at all. No one's saying all employers are subsided, just those paying below living costs.

Which is why your interpreting "the employer" to mean all employers as a group made absolutely no sense in context.

No, it's why your switching senses made no sense. Why should an employer meet living costs, you ask? For precisely the reason you acknowledged with respect to employers in general - which is all "the employer" could have meant in context.

Naturally the costs created by the employer should be paid by the employer, nobody is arguing against that. If I hire someone to dump toxic waste to nearby lake, then of course I should be the one who's responsible for cleaning it up, to use an extreme example. But how does my paying someone to do a task make me responsible for paying his electricity bills or kids tuition or a yacht or whatever other costs he might incur to society?

With the possible exception of electricity, it doesn't.

Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

What Underseer said.

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

Because neither a decent society nor the upkeep of the labourer require yachts.

Yet, for some reason you don't think it's fair to take a bit more from people who have yachts and give it to people who struggle with electricity bills.

Don't I

What's not fair is taking money from people who don't have yachts to maintain the workforce of employers who do.

 

[Canard DuJour]

You seem to be missing the point.

If someone has a full time job, they should have enough to buy food (at least enough to not die of starvation) and pay a modest electric bill (at least enough to cover heating so that they don't die during the winter).

Why should I the taxpayer become obligated to pay the food bills and heating bills of someone with a full time job? Why is it my responsibility to pad the profits of some corporation just because they don't feel like paying their employees enough to live? The tax dollars I spend on food programs and heating programs (which generally involves paying electric bills) is to save the lives of people who can't get those things on their own, but now we are in the absurd position that people with full time jobs need this kind of help just because a large number of corporations want to pad their profit margins with handouts that come from my tax dollars.

This is still repeating the same mistake of assuming that business is responsible for welfare.

This is still repeating the same mistake of assuming a market economy can run on welfare supplemented by wages.

 

[Jayjay]

No one's saying all employers are subsided, just those paying below living costs.

Which is why your interpreting "the employer" to mean all employers as a group made absolutely no sense in context.

No, it's why your switching senses made no sense. Why should an employer meet living costs, you ask? For precisely the reason you acknowledged with respect to employers in general - which is all "the employer" could have meant in context.

Non-sequitur. All businesses, being the only sources of income in an economy, have to be able to pay for all the costs of the society, or that society will crumble. It does not follow from that premise that an individual employer has to pay for some specific cost.

Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

What Underseer said.

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

Because neither a decent society nor the upkeep of the labourer require yachts.

Yet, for some reason you don't think it's fair to take a bit more from people who have yachts and give it to people who struggle with electricity bills.

Don't I

What's not fair is taking money from people who don't have yachts to maintain the workforce of employers who do.

Who's suggesting that? With progressive taxation, welfare means taking a little bit away from those who make enough to pay their own upkeep and more, and redistribute it to those who make less. You and Underseer appear agree with this scheme when it comes to the unemployed, but for some reason you think it is a great injustice on taxpayers if the recipient happens to have a full-time job.

I've yet to see a rational explanation why an employer should be responsible for its employee's living costs in addition to the labor. And if the employer is not responsible for those costs in the first place, then having the employee receive tax-payer funded welfare does not turn the employer into a moocher.

 

[Bomb#20]

Any time you wish to start offering facts into evidence to support your contention that failure to pay enough for "decent safe housing, decent safe food and decent safe healthcare" implies you're a moocher and a leech, knock yourself out.

I've offered plenty. You've not replied.

I was talking to Rhea; I'll get to the post you're referring to when I have time. If you find the pace of the substantive part of our discussion too slow, you don't actually have to slow it down yourself by posting groundless ad hominems. But they do helpfully show our readers how much you check facts before you make claims about factual matters; so if you want to keep making up false accusations against me, I can keep pointing out that you made them up.

(Oh, and Angra Mainyu offered you facts and asked you a question. And you, Mr. "I've offered plenty. You've not replied.", have not replied.)

I'd guess that it was because a libertarian was advocating a value system that advocated letting people starve to death for reasons of economics. Just a guess.

That didn't happen. Quote me advocating any value system at all. (And, FYI, I'm not a libertarian.)

All I'm doing is pointing out that the economic system being argued for simply doesn't add up, even if you don't have any finer feelings or moral sense at all.

No, that's not all you're doing. That's not even something you're doing. It's impossible for you to be doing that, because I wasn't arguing for an economic system. If you disagree, quote me. (And if you can't tell the difference between arguing for the facts and arguing for an economic system, that's on you.)

What you are doing is advocating a value system and an economic policy, and posting disinformation as support for them, and reacting to a guy calling you on it by posting additional disinformation specifically about him.

 

[Canard DuJour]

No one's saying all employers are subsided, just those paying below living costs.

Which is why your interpreting "the employer" to mean all employers as a group made absolutely no sense in context.

No, it's why your switching senses made no sense. Why should an employer meet living costs, you ask? For precisely the reason you acknowledged with respect to employers in general - which is all "the employer" could have meant in context.

Non-sequitur. All businesses, being the only sources of income in an economy, have to be able to pay for all the costs of the society, or that society will crumble. It does not follow from that premise that an individual employer has to pay for some specific cost.

Then it's not a non-sequitur as that's not what I'm claiming. But it does follow that businesses which can't or don't cover living costs are subsided by those that can and do.

Let's explore that a bit. Why is electricity special? If I pay you to do a certain task, say, stock some shelves in a super market for 8 hours a day, what in that relationship makes me responsible for your electric bills? Am I causing you to use more electricity than you otherwise would? If so, why should I pay the whole bill instead of just the added cost?

What Underseer said.

And if you happen to own a yacht, why am I not responsible for its upkeep? After all, I am keeping you at work for 8 hours a day when you could be yachting.

Because neither a decent society nor the upkeep of the labourer require yachts.

Yet, for some reason you don't think it's fair to take a bit more from people who have yachts and give it to people who struggle with electricity bills.

Don't I

What's not fair is taking money from people who don't have yachts to maintain the workforce of employers who do.

Who's suggesting that?

Opponents of a minimum wage.

With progressive taxation, welfare means taking a little bit away from those who make enough to pay their own upkeep and more, and redistribute it to those who make less. You and Underseer appear agree with this scheme when it comes to the unemployed, but for some reason you think it is a great injustice on taxpayers if the recipient happens to have a full-time job.

When a middle man gets wealthy from subsidy by non-wealthy donors, yes.

I've yet to see a rational explanation why an employer should be responsible for its employee's living costs in addition to the labor. And if the employer is not responsible for those costs in the first place, then having the employee receive tax-payer funded welfare does not turn the employer into a moocher.

A human's living costs are labour costs. Calling them "additional" costs is like saying you're prepared to pay for steel or electricity but not the "additional" costs of producing them which you think gov't should pay for. Yet you've just said that businesses are the only sources of income in an economy. It follows that tax payer-funded welfare is redistributed from businesses that cover living costs to those that don't. That is subsidy.

 

[Jayjay]

Why should an employer meet living costs, you ask? For precisely the reason you acknowledged with respect to employers in general - which is all "the employer" could have meant in context.

Non-sequitur. All businesses, being the only sources of income in an economy, have to be able to pay for all the costs of the society, or that society will crumble. It does not follow from that premise that an individual employer has to pay for some specific cost.

Then it's not a non-sequitur as that's not what I'm claiming. But it does follow that businesses which can't or don't cover living costs are subsided by those that can and do.

No, they are not, because those living costs are not the responsibility of those particular businesses to cover in the first place. Some people are always going to be unable to contribute enough to cover their own maintenance, but that's a problem that exists independently of their employers. A business is only subsidised if it doesn't pay its own costs and externalities.

What's not fair is taking money from people who don't have yachts to maintain the workforce of employers who do.

Who's suggesting that?

Opponents of a minimum wage.

With progressive taxation, welfare means taking a little bit away from those who make enough to pay their own upkeep and more, and redistribute it to those who make less. You and Underseer appear agree with this scheme when it comes to the unemployed, but for some reason you think it is a great injustice on taxpayers if the recipient happens to have a full-time job.

When a middle man gets wealthy from subsidy by non-wealthy donors, yes.

Unless the subsidy is conditional on employment, the employer is not a middle man in the transaction. Whether a household qualifies for food stamps for example is determined only by household size and income, not on how many or what kind of jobs the members of the household have. As for "non-wealthy donors" and the quip about minimum wage opponents is an attempt at a strawman - a person's opposition or support to minimum wage is orthogonal issue to opposition or support of a social safety net.

I've yet to see a rational explanation why an employer should be responsible for its employee's living costs in addition to the labor. And if the employer is not responsible for those costs in the first place, then having the employee receive tax-payer funded welfare does not turn the employer into a moocher.

A human's living costs are labour costs. Calling them "additional" costs is like saying you're prepared to pay for steel or electricity but not the "additional" costs of producing them which you think gov't should pay for. Yet you've just said that businesses are the only sources of income in an economy. It follows that tax payer-funded welfare is redistributed from businesses that cover living costs to those that don't. That is subsidy.

Do unemployed people not have living costs? Yes or no?

As for whether cost of making something is relevant, consider for example scrap metal. Making a brand new car costs a certain amount of money, but cars get totalled in accidents and lose their value due to wear and tear. A scrap yard who pays you $100 to get rid of your old car is certainly not paying the full cost of creating that car. The price tag of $100 is just what you and the scrap yard agreed is a fair amount at that point in time. If the car in question was fairly new and destroyed in an accident or is otherwise defective, it's very well possible that over its lifetime that car was a net loss to the society. That loss eventually has to be paid by someone but there's nothing in that math that says that the scrap yard should take responsibility for anything but the $100 (plus whatever other costs are involved in running a scrap yard in general).

The same is true of labor. Some people's labor is not simply worth the living costs of the laborer and that cost has to be subsidized by rest of the society somehow. But it is a subsidy to that particular individual, not his employer.

 

[Rhea]

Unless the subsidy is conditional on employment, the employer is not a middle man in the transaction.

Oh. Did you not know this was a truth in America? We've been talking about it all through this thread. It's law in many states and it's pushed in many others.

See, the conservatives push this thing called "welfare reform" which also goes by the name "workfare" in which you are forced to look for a job and take any job offered to you in order to get welfare benefits. because (turn off your irony meter before you read this part...) if you aren't out there working, you're A MOOCHER!

So being needy forces you to takes jobs at places that are exploiting your neediness and exploiting the government (that's the rest of us taxpayers plus all the other non-moocher companies) to get extra profits by offering a job that has to be accepted, but not paying enough to live on and expecting the rest of the people to pad the profits by supporting your workers.


Now here's a few indisputable facts:

1. Most minimum wage jobs (Walmart, McDonalds, etc) are for very large companies that make enough profit to create multi-millionaires of their executives and billionaires of their CEOs.
2. Comparable companies (Costco, Starbucks) doing essentially the same business still make marvelous profits while paying their employees enough to live without welfare.

ergo Group 1 is moochers since group 2 proves that they won't fold if they pay living wages.


So here's my corporate welfare moocher reform: As long as your highest paid worker makes more than 20x you lowest wage worker, you have to pay Living Wage Minimum. If your highest paid worker (including all packages, options and perks, of course) makes less than 20X the lowest paid, then feel free to all work for peanuts while your company grows. We love start-ups and family businesses after all. But once you think you're worth more than 20x your lowest paid worker and also think you can earn that money while government assistance keeps your workers off the streets, then you're a moocher and your business is taxed sufficiently to personally pay the welfare of your own employees.