

Why Raising Minimum Wages Is Riskier Than Expanding the EITC - Bob_Rob
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2015/04/30/why-raising-minimum-wages-is-riskier-than-expanding-the-eitc/

======
SCAQTony
Albeit a minimum wage hike or a government handout, somebody is having to come
up with the money to support those full time workers on minimum wage. Take
Wallmart as an example:

Walmart workers at a single 300-person Supercenter store rely on anywhere from
$904,542 to $1,744,590 in public benefits per year"

[http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edwor...](http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-
May2013.pdf)

The Forbes author applauds the Earned income tax credit as a subsidy but this
again is the government having to co-pay Wallmart's employees with tax
dollars.

------
dredmorbius
A buisiness which _cannot_ pay the full prrovisioning cost of labour is one
which is fundamentally uneconomic. There _may_ be reasons to _choose_ to
subsidize such businesses given net social benefit and market failures
resulting infailures of prices to meet costs.

But _profitable_ businesses, such as Walmart and McDonalds, which _choose_ to
pay below-subsistence wages are getting a handout directly from taxpayers, and
are shifting risks onto the backs of workers.

That a man must always live by his wages was recognized by Adam Smith. And not
just the worker himself but his family, children, and their education.

