How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens
By Barry Ritholz November 13, 2013
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html

It seems that welfare queens are back in the news these days. The old stereotype was an inner-city unwed mother -- that’s dog-whistle-speak for black -- having multiple babies to get ever bigger welfare checks (throw in a new Cadillac and the myth is complete). Regardless, welfare reform of the 1990s ended that narrative.

No, the new welfare queens are even bigger, richer and less deserving of taxpayer support. The two biggest welfare queens in America today are Wal-Mart and McDonald's.

This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. As it turns out, McDonald's has a “McResource” line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms receiving taxpayer subsidies? The short answer is, because they can. The longer answer is more complex and nuanced.

Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart are engaging in perfectly legal behavior. The system was set up long ago in ways that failed to imagine companies doing this. Yes, they are taking advantage of the taxpayer, but they are also operating within the law.

Which means it is time to change those outdated rules.

The simplest solution is to raise the minimum wage. If full-time employees are living below the poverty level -- especially those with children -- its no surprise they are going to need public assistance. Raising the minimum wage over a period of time will eliminate much of this corporate welfare. The costs will be slightly higher prices at fast food restaurants and low end retailers.

The next proposal is more severe: Charge back the amount of public assistance any employee receives to the company he or she works for. It would be separate from tax filings, and simply be a direct penalty charged to the firm. I doubt there is much political will for this proposal, but I can see some people -- especially on the Left -- supporting it.

The most radical idea is bit of pure fantasy: Guarantee every person in America a minimum salary. That is a proposal under discussion today in Switzerland. Its hard to even imagine such a concept gaining traction in the U.S. outside of the Great Depression era.

My politics are pretty middle-of-the-road, and I find myself offended by subsidizing profitable companies this way. As a taxpayer, there are much better things I would like to see my monies go towards. Some rule changes are needed to end this wasteful spending.

Bill N. post.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Attachments:

Wingnut is apparently perfectly fine with the idea that his tax dollars go to subsidize Wal-mart and McDonald's.

The people described are not sitting around on their asses doing nothing while sucking firmly at the government tittie. They're doing exactly what you want them to, which is working full-time jobs, and they still can't make enough money to get by without government assistance.

The most appropriate option is the second one: if you hire someone but don't pay them enough to live on and they have to use public money in the form of government assistance to not starve or freeze, your company should have to repay the money that it indirectly benefitted from.

They and other retailers also get cheap labor thanks to the immigration laws. They want to expand the guest worker programs despite the high unemployment rates.

.
Attachments:

Yup, certainly that $1.50 a meal on welfare is living it rich.

Jesus Was a Communist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wingnut is apparently perfectly fine with the idea
> that his tax dollars go to subsidize Wal-mart and
> McDonald's.
>
> The people described are not sitting around on
> their asses doing nothing while sucking firmly at
> the government tittie. They're doing exactly what
> you want them to, which is working full-time jobs,
> and they still can't make enough money to get by
> without government assistance.
>
> The most appropriate option is the second one: if
> you hire someone but don't pay them enough to live
> on and they have to use public money in the form
> of government assistance to not starve or freeze,
> your company should have to repay the money that
> it indirectly benefitted from.


Perhaps Wingnut is smart enough to realize if these people lose their jobs, the government will have to subsidize them at a higher level.

You know WingNut, when I saw Welfare Archduke and Jesus Was a Communist's posts, I thought it could have been me too. Sorry to disappoint, but apparently there are others who agree with me.

Also back in the day my hair color would have been lighter than that, my beard fuller, I would have been more muscular in the shoulders and any "decal" on the shirt regardless of message would have been much smaller.

However I do note that you have once again side stepped the real issue, which is why it is OK for businesses to transfer part of their costs to charities and the taxpayer. You can't simply leave it at "free market". In a society where we have decided it is not acceptable to have working people starving in the streets, then either the employer needs to pay a living wage or society (usually government but also charities) needs to step in and fill the gap.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> However I do note that you have once again side
> stepped the real issue, which is why it is OK for
> businesses to transfer part of their costs to
> charities and the taxpayer. You can't simply
> leave it at "free market". In a society where we
> have decided it is not acceptable to have working
> people starving in the streets, then either the
> employer needs to pay a living wage or society
> (usually government but also charities) needs to
> step in and fill the gap.


Theyre doing unskilled labor that children could do. Their jobs arent supposed to be careers and wouldnt be if the economy wasnt so bad. Theyre supposed to be entry level jobs unless you get into management and climb the corporate ladder.

Your side will be the first ones complaining about greedy business when its 10 dollars for a cheesburger or 20 dollars for a pack of batteries because everyone at those places now has to make 70k+.

They pay what the job is worth. You work there for a bit while in school or get some experience and move on. Only recently has the false idea been floated that being a cashier or door greeter is supposed to be a lifetime career that you can raise a family on.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > However I do note that you have once again side
> > stepped the real issue, which is why it is OK
> for
> > businesses to transfer part of their costs to
> > charities and the taxpayer. You can't simply
> > leave it at "free market". In a society where
> we
> > have decided it is not acceptable to have
> working
> > people starving in the streets, then either the
> > employer needs to pay a living wage or society
> > (usually government but also charities) needs
> to
> > step in and fill the gap.
>
>
> Theyre doing unskilled labor that children could
> do. Their jobs arent supposed to be careers and
> wouldnt be if the economy wasnt so bad. Theyre
> supposed to be entry level jobs unless you get
> into management and climb the corporate ladder.
>
> Your side will be the first ones complaining about
> greedy business when its 10 dollars for a
> cheesburger or 20 dollars for a pack of batteries
> because everyone at those places now has to make
> 70k+.
>
> They pay what the job is worth. You work there
> for a bit while in school or get some experience
> and move on. Only recently has the false idea
> been floated that being a cashier or door greeter
> is supposed to be a lifetime career that you can
> raise a family on.

That's actually very offensive to a guy like Wingnut, who has worked long and hard for years to be the best damn fry cook at BK. He's actually done quite well given his low IQ and poor reasoning skills.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > However I do note that you have once again side
> > stepped the real issue, which is why it is OK
> for
> > businesses to transfer part of their costs to
> > charities and the taxpayer. You can't simply
> > leave it at "free market". In a society where
> we
> > have decided it is not acceptable to have
> working
> > people starving in the streets, then either the
> > employer needs to pay a living wage or society
> > (usually government but also charities) needs
> to
> > step in and fill the gap.
>
>
> Theyre doing unskilled labor that children could
> do. Their jobs arent supposed to be careers and
> wouldnt be if the economy wasnt so bad. Theyre
> supposed to be entry level jobs unless you get
> into management and climb the corporate ladder.
>
> Your side will be the first ones complaining about
> greedy business when its 10 dollars for a
> cheesburger or 20 dollars for a pack of batteries
> because everyone at those places now has to make
> 70k+.
>
> They pay what the job is worth. You work there
> for a bit while in school or get some experience
> and move on. Only recently has the false idea
> been floated that being a cashier or door greeter
> is supposed to be a lifetime career that you can
> raise a family on.

The pay rates are depressed only because the business community lobbied the government to increase the supply of labor. Since the labor is being brought in from outside the country, it's also going to be more mobile without being encumbered to a permanent residence and further distort the supply and demand in a given community.

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


thats the white girl I like to fuck holding that sign asking if shed like to live rent free for sex.

I'd only demand she keep the house clean and no other men are allowed in the place lest she get kicked out.

eLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The pay rates are depressed only because the
> business community lobbied the government to
> increase the supply of labor. Since the labor is
> being brought in from outside the country, it's
> also going to be more mobile without being
> encumbered to a permanent residence and further
> distort the supply and demand in a given
> community.

If people didnt want the job they wouldnt take it. The wage and price of goods would go up if they had to raise the rate to fill the spots.

Illegal immigrant labor does play a role, but its also because Americans now are being pounded with the idea that everyone deserves to be the CEO or make huge raises right out of college for any job. People wont take those jobs anymore because they arent good enough.

The feds do turn a blind eye to illegal immigration though which a simple work visa program could help put a huge dent into.

The problem with your argument LL is that neither Walmart nor McDonalds could make it with their hours of operation if they had to staff their operations with the kind of employees that you are talking about. WalMart and McDonalds needs precisely the kind of workers that you claim they shouldn't have in order to operate the way that they do. These workers consume more resources than their current wages cover, meaning the excess has to come from somewhere else. Where are those additional resources coming from? They aren't coming from mom and dad, because these companies aren't hiring those kinds of workers.

If you think the idea of a store clerk being an adult job is some new concept, you really are displaying your ignorance of things before you were born. There was a time not too long ago when it was common for people to be able to survive on what they made working at diners, retail stores or being a journeyman construction worker. No we are not talking about living comfortably or raising a family, but we are talking about having a place to live, putting food on the table and clothing to wear, covering transportation costs to and from work, and having enough left over to occasionally blow off a little steam.

I sit here busting out laughing, great find BEH!

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with your argument LL is that neither
> Walmart nor McDonalds could make it with their
> hours of operation if they had to staff their
> operations with the kind of employees that you are
> talking about. WalMart and McDonalds needs
> precisely the kind of workers that you claim they
> shouldn't have in order to operate the way that
> they do. These workers consume more resources
> than their current wages cover, meaning the excess
> has to come from somewhere else. Where are those
> additional resources coming from? They aren't
> coming from mom and dad, because these companies
> aren't hiring those kinds of workers.
>
> If you think the idea of a store clerk being an
> adult job is some new concept, you really are
> displaying your ignorance of things before you
> were born. There was a time not too long ago when
> it was common for people to be able to survive on
> what they made working at diners, retail stores or
> being a journeyman construction worker. No we are
> not talking about living comfortably or raising a
> family, but we are talking about having a place to
> live, putting food on the table and clothing to
> wear, covering transportation costs to and from
> work, and having enough left over to occasionally
> blow off a little steam.


No, they wouldn't. They could do it the same way that they did before the mass migration. All that did was to displace in some areas the people who did those entry-level jobs. Which were never expected to fully support single mother Maria and her 5 kids in the first place. Nor do many other, for example, entry-level public-sector jobs which 'for some reason' don't receive the same criticism.

Shocker - In areas without significant populations of these types of workers, there still are McDonalds and Walmarts. And they have no problem finding people to work there who do not require nor receive resources from the government beyond that.

Liberal Logic 29 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Illegal immigrant labor does play a role, but its
> also because Americans now are being pounded with
> the idea that everyone deserves to be the CEO or
> make huge raises right out of college for any job.
> People wont take those jobs anymore because they
> arent good enough.

Which is a load of crap. When certain states started cracking down on illegal immigrants the business communities didn't start complaining they couldn't find legal workers to take the jobs. The complained they couldn't find legal workers to take the jobs at close to the wages they were paying. However they are entitled to at least some sympathy, because they were quite often competing against businesses operating in other states without the same legal restrictions.

tGuYU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, they wouldn't. They could do it the same way
> that they did before the mass migration. All that
> did was to displace in some areas the people who
> did those entry-level jobs. Which were never
> expected to fully support single mother Maria and
> her 5 kids in the first place. Nor do many other,
> for example, entry-level public-sector jobs which
> 'for some reason' don't receive the same
> criticism.
>
> Shocker - In areas without significant populations
> of these types of workers, there still are
> McDonalds and Walmarts. And they have no problem
> finding people to work there who do not require
> nor receive resources from the government beyond
> that.

Bigger shocker. Take a look at what some of these businesses are paying their employees relative to what others are making in the community. If the guy working in WalMart or McDonalds is making half as much as what the typical worker living in the area is making, it will be much easier for him to make it than it would be if he is making a third or a quarter.

I'm talking about legal immigration and guest workers in particular. The employers are getting a free ride since the workers pay their way to get into the country. If they hired a native-born worker, they would have to pay a higher wage or relocation expenses to attract workers. The guest workers often use public assistance and share lodging to be able to live on the wages.

http://www.capsweb.org/blog/uc-berkeley-labor-center-report-underlines-harm-more-guest-workers-would-inflict-america%E2%80%99s-poor

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tGuYU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, they wouldn't. They could do it the same
> way
> > that they did before the mass migration. All
> that
> > did was to displace in some areas the people
> who
> > did those entry-level jobs. Which were never
> > expected to fully support single mother Maria
> and
> > her 5 kids in the first place. Nor do many
> other,
> > for example, entry-level public-sector jobs
> which
> > 'for some reason' don't receive the same
> > criticism.
> >
> > Shocker - In areas without significant
> populations
> > of these types of workers, there still are
> > McDonalds and Walmarts. And they have no
> problem
> > finding people to work there who do not require
> > nor receive resources from the government
> beyond
> > that.
>
> Bigger shocker. Take a look at what some of these
> businesses are paying their employees relative to
> what others are making in the community. If the
> guy working in WalMart or McDonalds is making half
> as much as what the typical worker living in the
> area is making, it will be much easier for him to
> make it than it would be if he is making a third
> or a quarter.


Except that they aren't. Their wages are comparable to most other entry-level jobs. And the differential only becomes significant at levels beyond that than in places where there is a very high upper income range which affects the overall costs of living there. It's not Walmart or McDonald's fault that they happen to have locations in areas with high costs due to, for example, the presence of the Federal government and associated pay levels which cause housing costs to be out of sight (sound familiar?). Their costs also are higher in those areas. Nor is it their responsibility to provide some corresponding minimal level of lifestyle for a worker who's inappropriately trying to use such a job to raise a family as a result. Fairfax County doesn't pay enough at the level of entry-level positions either btw.

CCPJM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Except that they aren't. Their wages are
> comparable to most other entry-level jobs. And
> the differential only becomes significant at
> levels beyond that than in places where there is a
> very high upper income range which affects the
> overall costs of living there. It's not Walmart
> or McDonald's fault that they happen to have
> locations in areas with high costs due to, for
> example, the presence of the Federal government
> and associated pay levels which cause housing
> costs to be out of sight (sound familiar?). Their
> costs also are higher in those areas. Nor is it
> their responsibility to provide some corresponding
> minimal level of lifestyle for a worker who's
> inappropriately trying to use such a job to raise
> a family as a result. Fairfax County doesn't pay
> enough at the level of entry-level positions
> either btw.

Bill seems to have some idea that money appears out of no where and everyone single job no matter how easy should be able to buy a home and raise a family of 5.

Youre absolutely right their wages are competitive for what the jobs are and they arent responsible for inflated costs of living in areas nor are they responsible for someone who has too many kids they cant afford.

Walmart only makes like 1500-2500 of profit per employee. Give everyone a 10-20k raise and well theres no more walmart and no one has a job or the ability to buy stuff cheap. You really dont even want those jobs paying well. Why would you work hard or better yourself or even try and work up the ladder if the first job you get out of high school with no training pays you like youve been in the work force for a couple decades.

At the end of the day though Bill really doesnt care about the economics of it or the numbers of their profit per employee or the fact that his wages would destroy private business, he likely feels theyre doing the job of the government anyway. If its big business hes against it, yet when government does it hes all for it.

Unless your dad owns the company most people start a job at entry level. If after five years you find yourself in the same position who do you blame. Or you can wait until Walmart of McDonalds starts paying you twenty bucks an hour.

Bill N is a socialist, it is obvious from his posts. I still kinda like Billy, he is pretty educated but his naiveté really shines sometimes.

First off, I gotta concede this. YES. The big corporations absolutely understand fully that these costs are passed on to the taxpayer and they probably rationalize it by pointing to the amount of taxes they pay and the amount of revenue they produce. They are being scumbags, yessir.

The solution?


Charge these corporations for the programs the feds are paying for?


For one, these programs are not something the corporations created. They are surely using them to their advantage, but charging them for it is not dissimilar to goons charging "protection money". It doesn't matter if you don't want protection, you are paying it.

Secondly, programs like SNAP and Medicaid are run with extreme inefficiency. Google, "Medicaid fraud" just for the hell of it and see how many cases pop up. So if we follow Billy's logic, the Government/the System/the Machine will not only offer an overpriced and inefficient service, but they will charge others for it, others who are not using it.

Third, let's talk about the argument that these companies are big and can afford it. Probably so. Would it be OK to only chargeback the larger companies then? 100 employees or more? 50 or more? Eventually you are on a slippery slope.

You could be "fair" and charge ANY employer whose workers have to get government assistance. You could chargeback the small business guy who owns a dollar store in the hood and can seriously only afford a straight $10 wage for his handful of employees. He will be hurt worst and eventually only the huge mega retailers will exist as monopolies. You'll be able to get anything you like, as long as Walmart sells it because they will literally be the only game in town due to their clout and buying power. No thanks!

Lastly, there is the faulty assumption that every job should pay "a living wage". Sounds nice and humane, but it does not factor in the differences job to job. No one should expect to do much more than rent a room and ride the bus if you are a Walmart greeter or a Blockbuster clerk. Some jobs are designed to be transitional or temporary for students or seniors. Raising wages for these menial positions will make many of the lesser needed ones go away, fast. Hope you like finding your own shopping cart!

I gotta add too there is also a problem of low ambition and underachievement in a lot of fast food and retail jobs. It is pathetic to see physically healthy people in the prime of their youth who choose to be $8 an hour fry cooks or clerks because they do not the nitty gritty of physical labor. While these unmotivated types go the easy route, the jobs they "could be doing" (and earning more at) are being filled by immigrants. Roofing, floor work, landscaping etc- trades that don't require a lot of training and pay well but can be physically demanding. A lot of young people are ducking this kind of work, it's a fact.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

All we need is a President and a Congress that are not beholding to corporations with money.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill N is a socialist, it is obvious from his
> posts. I still kinda like Billy, he is pretty
> educated but his naiveté really shines
> sometimes.
>
> First off, I gotta concede this. YES. The big
> corporations absolutely understand fully that
> these costs are passed on to the taxpayer and they
> probably rationalize it by pointing to the amount
> of taxes they pay and the amount of revenue they
> produce. They are being scumbags, yessir.
>
> The solution?

You are a racist.
>
>
> Charge these corporations for the programs the
> feds are paying for?
>
>
> For one, these programs are not something the
> corporations created. They are surely using them
> to their advantage, but charging them for it is
> not dissimilar to goons charging "protection
> money". It doesn't matter if you don't want
> protection, you are paying it.
>
> Secondly, programs like SNAP and Medicaid are run
> with extreme inefficiency. Google, "Medicaid
> fraud" just for the hell of it and see how many
> cases pop up. So if we follow Billy's logic, the
> Government/the System/the Machine will not only
> offer an overpriced and inefficient service, but
> they will charge others for it, others who are not
> using it.
>
> Third, let's talk about the argument that these
> companies are big and can afford it. Probably so.
> Would it be OK to only chargeback the larger
> companies then? 100 employees or more? 50 or more?
> Eventually you are on a slippery slope.
>
> You could be "fair" and charge ANY employer whose
> workers have to get government assistance. You
> could chargeback the small business guy who owns a
> dollar store in the hood and can seriously only
> afford a straight $10 wage for his handful of
> employees. He will be hurt worst and eventually
> only the huge mega retailers will exist as
> monopolies. You'll be able to get anything you
> like, as long as Walmart sells it because they
> will literally be the only game in town due to
> their clout and buying power. No thanks!
>
> Lastly, there is the faulty assumption that every
> job should pay "a living wage". Sounds nice and
> humane, but it does not factor in the differences
> job to job. No one should expect to do much more
> than rent a room and ride the bus if you are a
> Walmart greeter or a Blockbuster clerk. Some jobs
> are designed to be transitional or temporary for
> students or seniors. Raising wages for these
> menial positions will make many of the lesser
> needed ones go away, fast. Hope you like finding
> your own shopping cart!
>
> I gotta add too there is also a problem of low
> ambition and underachievement in a lot of fast
> food and retail jobs. It is pathetic to see
> physically healthy people in the prime of their
> youth who choose to be $8 an hour fry cooks or
> clerks because they do not the nitty gritty of
> physical labor. While these unmotivated types go
> the easy route, the jobs they "could be doing"
> (and earning more at) are being filled by
> immigrants. Roofing, floor work, landscaping etc-
> trades that don't require a lot of training and
> pay well but can be physically demanding. A lot of
> young people are ducking this kind of work, it's a
> fact.

A girlfriend on assistance needs help so help the girl