(April 16, 2015 at 9:55 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: On the other hand, it is true that labor force participation would likely go up if food stamps were effectively subsidizing the labor market. Therefore, they are not. This means employers wouldn't pay any better if food stamps were done away with.
I agree with this. What is important to note is that McDonalds now doesn't do anything to help its employees utilize government safety nets. Why? Because some libertard clowns tried to spin McDonalds good deeds to its employees as maximizing corporate subsidies. They made McDonald's out to be the bad guy so idiots like Brian would vote for them. No good deed goes unpunished when liberaltards are about.
McDonald's is going to pay the minimum wage or the market rate for labor which ever is lower regardless if government safety nets exist or not. People are only going to work for McDonalds if doing so makes their lives better off. Foodstamps and other government programs only decrease the incentive for people to work at McDonalds.
As a project, I have been thinking about attempting to train the squirrels that inhabit my property to pick up pine cones and deposit them into a receptacle. I'm thinking that each time a squirrel deposits a pine cone into the receptacle, they are rewarded with a some nuts or other high value food. Suppose I do this and I am successful. Further suppose my neighbor doesn't like the fact that I am taking advantage of the poor squirrels by paying them peanuts. My angry neighbor decides to simply give the squirrels nuts with no strings attached. If that happened, I suspect the squirrels would stop picking up pine cones for me.
When the government subsidies the existence of laborers, the laborers have less of an incentive to work for peanuts. The employer must compensate by actually paying the laborer more.
