jh - The increase in education and healthcare costs has been stark. We've gone into semi-permanent debt as individuals in order to achieve any sort of economic mobility. While year-to-year inflation was low from time to time, corresponding wage increases were non-existent.

TP - An employer having the government step in and provide additional money, medical care, housing, etc because an employer can't or won't pay is the epitome of a subsidy from the government. we are subsidizing that low wage from Walmart or whoever. Without it, they wouldn't be able to continue with their business model. IT'S ECON 101, brother. Re-check your syllabus, it's right after 'There's no expectation that the government help you, unless you're a corporation"

pacino wrote:TP - An employer having the government step in and provide additional money, medical care, housing, etc because an employer can't or won't pay is the epitome of a subsidy from the government.

Really a matter of perspective.

The government is subdidizing the individual, whose job skills are inadequate to earn a living wage.

Again, take away WalMart, and you increase the subsidy that government provides to the individual.

You're blaming the effect and ignoring the cause.

whose job skills are inadequate to earn a living wage

another matter of perspective!

humans are not widgets, fwiw

Hard to believe TP is siding with the enormous corporation in this argument

Woody wrote:Hard to believe TP is siding with the enormous corporation in this argument

It's great sport to bash WalMart - but they are clearly a net good for America.

It was once fashionable to bash IBM, then Microsoft, now WalMart. Soon, Apple. America hates winners.

Yo jh is there any reason Booker's student loan refinance bill won't pass the House?

The 5.5% interest rate on my loans is a real bummer.

To be fair, if we had like a Canadian style health care system, then every employer would have their externalities subsidized.

pacino wrote:jh - The increase in education and healthcare costs has been stark. We've gone into semi-permanent debt as individuals in order to achieve any sort of economic mobility. While year-to-year inflation was low from time to time, corresponding wage increases were non-existent.

I remember seeing an essay about how the difference between socioeconomic classes used to be about what material goods you can afford, and that's really not the case anymore, as almost everybody can afford TVs, computers, cell phones, etc. these days, as costs to produce them have come way down. Instead, the difference between socioeconomic classes is now about things like access to the best education and health care.

wtf

this guy still thinks he's living in the Confederacy, thinks slavery was social security for black people and has a huge Nathan Bedford Forrest statue and 13 giant flags on his property right before you enter Nashville. But he's not racist, just ask him!

TomatoPie wrote:

Woody wrote:Hard to believe TP is siding with the enormous corporation in this argument

It's great sport to bash WalMart - but they are clearly a net good for America.

It was once fashionable to bash IBM, then Microsoft, now WalMart. Soon, Apple. America hates winners.

jesus christ.

Clearly, Amazon is more disruptive and probably in lots of ways more harmful than Wal-Mart. First, of course, they've more or less destroyed entire segments of brick and mortar businesses. And, consider how hard they've fought against laws that would require them to collect sales taxes (technically, you are supposed to pay these taxes but no one does--even if you buy on-line from Wal-Mart, you do at least end up paying sales tax) and treats is workers pretty terribly. But, since its customers are more affluent, and in part its success stems not from being cheaper but from having CDs and especially books you couldn't easily find in your local shop, even big box stores, it does not receive the kind disdain from elitists who patronize it as Wal-Mart does.

But really, every negative thing you could say about Wal-Mart goes for Amazon, and a lot, lot more.

Maybe it's not just elitism, maybe it also stems from the fact that Amazon, unlike Wal-Mart, emphasizes improving the customer experience more than low prices. I wonder if there isn't a message there--companies that treat their customers poorly may be singled out for harsh treatment politically. I would say that one reason why net neutrality is winning politically is because people love Netflix and Google but hate their ISPs.

TomatoPie wrote:You cite WalMart workers on Medicaid as externalizing its costs, no?

If WalMart is not CAUSING that, then it's gonna happen with or without Walmart. So it invalidates the notion that Walmart is externalizing its costs --

You've convinced me that you don't really understand what externalities are. There's your Econ 101 for you!

anyone wanna guess what jindal's approval rating is in his Louisiana?

Low 40s would be my guess.

31 percent in may!

would be way higher if he was white though

they're going to replace him with David Vitter, known for his sexy-time business and extreme views

Houshphandzadeh wrote:would be way higher if he was white though

why doesn't he just say he identifies as white

TomatoPie wrote:I don't enjoy the WalMart shopping experience

Nothing but "undesireables". I avoid WalMart like the plague. Come to think of it, you'd probably catch the plague from those filthy undesireables.

pacino wrote:wtf

this guy still thinks he's living in the Confederacy, thinks slavery was social security for black people and has a huge Nathan Bedford Forrest statue and 13 giant flags on his property right before you enter Nashville. But he's not racist, just ask him!

Most of "those people" think the red with blue X "rebel" flag is the flag of the confederacy. It was the battle flag of North Virginia, was square (not rectangle), and it isn't called "the stars and bars", but "the southern cross". The flag of the confederacy ("the stars and bars") looks nothing like it.

"These people" also shop at WalMart.