Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannonball996
when you factor in all the government money, the minimum wage goes a lot farther then you think. I look at my own employees who I pay a little more minimum wage, and everyone of them gets food stamps (in texas its the lone star card) I know a few of them get some sort of housing allowance because they call me to verify their employment.
I think the real question should be, why does someone with a job still need government money?
|
If people making minimum wage are also receiving money from the government, isn't that an indirect subsidy to those businesses? In other words, if there were no welfare then workers simply could not accept that lower wage and still live. They'd have to work a less desireable job for higher pay, pursue education/training to qualify for a better job, etc. But since they are subsidized to accept a lower wage (they'd lose their benefits if they made more) then businesses can pay less.
If they are receiving $100 a week in welfare-like benefits, would it make more sense to pay that business $100 a week that gets paid out in higher wages? If that were $7.25 minimum wage, it's effectively $9.75 ($2.50/hr x 40 hrs = $100). It's the same money one way or the other, right? It benefits the employer as much as the welfare recipient, right?
Like it has been said, businesses couldn't afford to pay more, they'd have to close their doors. So welfare keeps those businesses profitable and/or viable. Am I thinking wrong here?