Forum Thread

Increasing the Minimum Wage is a Surefire Way to Reduce Food Stamp Recepients

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The vast majority of individuals who currently receive SNAP benefits are currently employed, but don't make enough money to purchase food and other necessities without government assistance. I believe that the easiest way to find a solution for this problem is to increase the federal minimum wage so individuals will be able to afford to purchase their food without assistance.

    I know it seems like a very simple proposal, but it's something I have put a lot of thought in to. If a company is required to pay their employees more then those employees would not be dependent on the American taxpayer to subsidize the parts of their daily lives that they can not afford. It seems as if you will solve to major problems with one stone--lifting hard working Americans out of poverty and giving them the ability to not be dependent on the government for assistance.

    What do you think? Do you agree that this would be a good way to decrease the number of individuals who receive SNAP benefits or will it create unforeseen problems I haven't considered yet?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What you have not, and many do not seem to understand is this is not a solution for bringing lower wage earners to a higher level of society. When a business is forced to pay out more money for labor they have a few options. One is seek ways to cut labor, two is raise prices to be able to pay the employees. Obviously option one won't benefit employees. Whereas option two in the SHORT TERM will, in the longer term it will only increase inflation, making the doller worth less, and that item that used to cost a dollar, now will cost dollar fifty. So how did the raise on MW help. It did not because the chain reaction has caused prices to increase all over. If I wasn't clear, take a course in Economics.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Splash, you may be right about the minimum wage not putting a low wage earner into a higher level of society. But, why not pay the wage earner his earnings instead of having the government subsidize the business by giving food stamps, while the company wage steals, keeping profits for the high level management and owners.

    You did not mention Option 3. The Corporate Officers and Owners could take a cut. Again, keeping the majority of the profits is "wage stealing". And, the companies are subsidized by the tax payers.

    Simple Economics is Supply/Demand. Who are the consumers in America? Now, the Middle Class families are borrowing to buy houses, autos, and education. The problem here is that young working Americans are forced to mortgage their future. Large debt does create demand, but it is only short term. Proof is in the "too big to fail" banks.

    "Trickle Down" economics does not work! Investing in the supply side of the equation does not bring demand. Consumers bring demand. If more money was in the hands of the middle class and the lower wage earners, the money would then "Trickle Up", creating a healthy economy.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I agree with Max and Capesandsaints.

    Yes, Splasha1 has a good point. IF you increase minimum wage, a likely outcome will be that businesses like McDonald's and Wally World will raise the prices of their products. But consider the ratio. Do you think it will honestly be 1:1 ratio? Like raising a minimum wage to non-poverty levels (going from $7.25/hr to say $10.10/hr) will directly mean that all prices will uniformly raise to completely cover the higher wages? I think not.

    Even if it does, consider the amount of folks making only minimum wage. What % is that in this country? Lower than you think, I'm sure. Last I checked, it was less than 5-10% of hourly workers. But even according to a 2014 CBO report, raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hr would effect 16.5 million workers positively, out of over 155 million workers. That accounts for roughly only 10.6% of all workers.

    I think we can all collectively pay an extra 5-10 cents on our next McRib to ensure that all workers working a full time position can have the opportunity to simply pay their way in this country fair and square, without the use of our welfare system (that oh by the way, a system that taxpayers fund. So if you lower the need, potentially we can lower than portion of everyone's taxes too).

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Capesandsaints Wrote:

    why not pay the wage earner his earnings instead of having the government subsidize the business by giving food stamps, while the company wage steals, keeping profits for the high level management and owners.

    Good point. The lowest wage earners in this country have to find a way to survive financially, one way or another. If they don't get enough income from their minimum wage job, they will just apply for government welfare programs. All we are doing is passing the buck away from pressuring big companies, in favor of raising taxes to fund welfare programs. Why is that?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    we live now in a world since 1993 or e-bay where wages cant cause inflation on durable goods and new economic laws exist. I know this frustrates many so called conservatives but NOT supporting min wage increases will only lead to more welfare and government spending. Despite what politicians from all partys say most people work for a big major corporation that has had huge profit margin increases while wages stagnate. When rich people make more it has almost no direct effect on local economy but poor people spend all money locally. However this raises another logical question should the government have a say in how people spend benefits,i say yes! One thing worth considering is the effect of a poor unhealthy diet on healthcare costs in America I believe in we gave everybody food stamps including those with high income levels as well but it had to go 85% or more to healthy foods only we would reduce dramatically overall government spending by cutting health care costs that we spend from ilnness and disease caused by poor nutrition. We could REDUCE government spending overall by giving everyone food stamps but it almost all had to go to healthy food. This also would be spent mostly at farmers markets and local meat producers sending more people back into agriculture,solving the employment crisis caused by robotification based job losses.