Market Pressure to Reduce Welfare Spending

In discussions with other libertarians a thought came to me on how to reduce welfare assistance based upon market pressure. It wouldn't really cost employers anything (small data collection cost) where the customers of the establishment could become informed and make their own decisions on whether to patronize the business or not. My proposal is very simple.

Require employers to collect information on how many of their employees have received outside assistance, either private or public, and then the "store" would post that information on the front door. If, for example, 50% of Walmarts employees at a store are collecting SNAP assistance then Walmart would post that information (including the number of employees) on their front door.

With this release of information publically their customers would know that their tax dollars are being spent to support the employees where the enterprise doesn't provide adequate compensation for the employee to live on. Let the customers then decide if they want to patronize the enterprise or not based upon the information being provided to them.

This information can be collected anonymously from the employees so as to not stigmatize them into answering falsely to the survey.

This would apply "market pressure" to the enterprise that doesn't provide enough compensation to their employees based upon actual knowledge provided to the consumer. Today enterprises don't want their customers to know this information because they are afraid of losing customers.... and they should be afraid because I, for one, damn well wouldn't patronize a business that is requiring me to pay taxes to support their profits.

 

So you mean if a new employee comes in asking to work 10 hours per week, and they also are on SNAP, then the store therefore has to post that workers SNAP status, presumably as a black mark against that company? That seems preposterous to me.

 

Oh goody!

Another regulation to drive up costs of goods and services.

 

I, too am not particular fond of the idea that our tax dollars are basically corporate welfare for corporations who refuse to pay their workers a reasonable wage to live on.

 

Oh goody!

Another neoliberal with nothing to offer. You guys are the ones who are always droning on about "perfect information" in markets right?

 

Taxcutter says:
Find a way to do this without imposing yet another cost and I'm OK with it. Til then, I can live without it.

 

Make the survey a little more information by breaking it down into specific criteria:

Full time employees (based upon federal guidlines for full time work)
Voluntary part time employees (those that choose to work part time)
Involuntary part time employees (those that want to work full time)

Providing accurate information to the consumer is a good thing, don't you think?

 

Maybe the welfare costs would go down if Walmart paid a living wage and the employees weren't eligible for anything? Of course you'd have to trust Congress to do the right thing, they wouldn't because the Republicans would demand that anything saved on welfare be funneled back to the top 1%.

 

The cost to the enterprise to collect and post this information wouldn't impose any significant cost to the enterprise. I would estimate it would cost less than $10/employee/yr even for a small enterprise. The regulation wouldn't drive even a small fraction of one-percent in increased costs of goods or services and probably wouldn't change the costs at all. It is far too insignifican.

Market pressure could cause a change in the costs of goods and services but only an anti-caplitalist would oppose market pressure effecting the costs of goods and services.

So I guess are you an anti-capitalist is the fundamental question.

 

It's obvious that if every full time worker was compensated enough so that they didn't qualify for welfare assistance that the cost of welfare assistance would decline dramatically. I can't provide an accurate number as I don't have that information but I would provide rough estimate of the costs of welfare assistance dropping to less than 1/2 of what we spend today. That would be about $250 billion per year in reduced federal spending alone.

It is illogical to cut taxes so long as there is an annual federal deficit which is the fundamental problem with the "Tea Party" movement ideology. Opposition to collecting enough in tax revenues to fund authorized expenditures reflects fiscal irresponsibility and the Tea Party movement advocates fiscal irresponsibility by the federal government today. Republicans in general also advocate unfair taxation as they support a tax policy where the highest income households have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United State.

 

No, I HONESTLY think this idea is absolutely preposterous. It would incentivize companies to NEVER fill their part time needs with anyone that says they want full time work, and those people that want full time work and can only find part time are amongst those that need it the most. In their case something is far better than nothing, and you are taking that something away from them. The unintended consequences of your attempt at social engineering would be to harm those in our society that are the most desperate. I also fail to see how this idea can even remotely be justified from a Libertarian perspective, which is I believe what you call yourself.

 

Then make a proposal on how this information could be gathered without a "disincentive" to the enterprise. The point is to collect information for the consumer and provide them with that information so that they can make informed buying decisions.

Libertarians are not opposed to consumers being informed and advocate "market pressure" to correct problems with capitalism.

The collection and posting of this information by an enterprise doesn't impose any real financial burden on the enterprise but it makes a huge difference as far as consumer information goes. To oppose this proposal is basically like opposing "Consumer Reports" gather information on products that buyers often refer to in making purchase decisions.

The consumers need to be informed if they are to be expected to make informed purchasing decisions. Why would anyone oppose information?

 

The onus isnt on me to therefore make an alternative proposal. I think this idea is preposterous and ultimately useless, providing yet more needless regulation on business. Collect information for the consumer? It isnt anyones business which employees of a particular company happen to be on government assistance. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe that employee doesnt want his government assistance status to be broadcast to the general public or to his coworkers? If there are ten employees working at a company, all with varying income levels, dont you think that other employees could figure out which one is on government assistance? Why not simply mark them with a scarlet letter?

I have always taken Libertarianism to be about personal freedom. Minimum wage doesnt even fit the bill for personal freedom and lack of government intrusion, much less some hokey government regulation that is going to mandate announcing the government assistance status of a company's employees

Of course we could use this flimsy logic to justify requiring ANY information from a company and its employees, all in the name of not opposing ANY information.

Perhaps we should require companies to post sexual history of the employees, value of their homes, credit status, arrest records, and amount donated to charity. After all, the cost of this would be minimal, and lets face it, as consumers we have a right to know as much as we can about whom we are doing business correct? After all, why would anyone oppose information. Anyone that opposes this is akin to opposing Consumer Reports.

 

Is it a libertarian position that all consumers be forced to pay for compliance with regulations that the vast majority of consumers don't give a rip about?

Lower case libertarianism has changed, apparently.

 

I like the idea very much! And I have not waited for such an idea to be implemented to NOT patronize Wallmart because of its disastrous record on how they treat their employees. On the contrary, I am happy to sponsor Costco as opposed to Sam's club!

 

Sure as long as you are required to provide your income tax returns at the counter so the store can decide whether or not it wants to do business with you.

 

I'm not sure where all this talk about welfare for people who are working is coming from.

If you work a full-time job, even at minimum wage, you will not qualify for food stamps.

If you are working 2 part-time jobs, even at minimum wage, you will not qualify for food stamps.

What exactly are you referring to? Are you talking about people who are working ONE part-time job? Do you know how much you would have to pay a person who has ONE part-time job so that they wouldn't qualify for food stamps?

 

Costs are part of doing business. Deal with it or fold.

 

Oh don't worry. There will be plenty of businesses who fold due to government regulation. And when those people who used to work at those businesses start complaining about not having jobs... you can just tell them to deal with it or fold.

 

Business' have nobody but themselves to blame for regulations, or lack thereof.

 

That doesn't even make any sense.

 

I can't think of too many business that aren't at the public trough, directly or indirectly. There are large numbers of Ivy League CEOs working very hard to max profits, and they don't care where those profits come from. The taxpayer's money is just as good as the customer's money. But I am proud to say that I haven't been inside a WalMart in years. And I might have to start frequenting the GAP.

 

If you want to use pressure to reduce welfare, then publish the names of welfare recipients, what benefits they receive, and how much they get.

 

"This proposal is profoundly anti-capitalist, since public assistance shouldn't even exist in the first place."

 

I seriously doubt this is an issue and, of course, a block could be provided for "I prefer not to answer" and that could also be posted with the statistics on the front door.

My proposal could actually end the "minimum wage" at least for retail stores because it relies on market pressure and not a mandated minimum wage.

As a card carrying Libertarian I care about how my taxes are being spent and if they're being spent to support a "Walmart" employee then I want to know that. Why should I be taxed to fund public assistance to a "Walmart" employee just because "Walmart" chooses to not compensate their employee so that the employee doesn't need my assistance? "Walmart" is making a profit off the labor of their employees while I'm not making a profit from that labor and I'm being taxed so that "Walmart" can earn more in profits. "Walmart" can afford to pay their employees enough and still earn a profit so there is no logical reason why they shouldn't.

I'm the one "footing the bill" so I have a right to know what enterpises are causing the problem of poverty where it becomes necessary for me to pay taxes to mitigate the effects of the poverty.

No we can't use this logic to support the collection of information that is completely unrelated to the operation of the enterprise and how it affects their customers. Please stop being absurd. When it comes to an enterprise not providing the compensation necessary to keep their employees off of welfare assistance it is information the consumer needs to know because the "consumer" is paying the taxes necessary for that assistance.

Let me provide an analogy. I live in WA where we have Sound Transit which is a commuter rail system. Every passenger's ticket is subsidized by the State to the tune of about $51 based upon a recent study. I believe that this "subsidy" should be printed in bold on the ticket because the taxpayers are paying the majority of the cost for every person that rides on the train. Why should I be billed for the cost of those riding the train to go to and from work? There can be reasons but at least I believe that the person using that ticket should be aware of the fact that, as a property owner and taxpayer, I'm funding their commute to and from work every single day they use the train.

If I choose to shop at "Walmart" then I should know how many and what percentage of their employees I'm supporting with my income tax dollars!!! If it's too high then maybe I will choose not to spend my hard earned money at "Walmart" which will put market pressure on "Walmart" to change their labor rates.