[lbo-talk] Hidden subsidies to Wal-Mart

[alex lantsberg]

I think the point is that the indirect subsidies serve to undermine other
higher wage employers that do provide benefits-check out Ruth Milkman's
article at TomPaine.com about the new Safeway contract since she essentially
makes that same point  Theoretically a progressively financed universal
health care system will level the playing field and disallow some employers
from shifting their costs onto taxpayers.  That's some of the basic
reasoning behind SB2, the CA employer based 'play or pay' health care bill.

al
-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of Miles Jackson
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:03 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Hidden subsidies to Wal-Mart

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, John Lacny wrote:


> Good Jobs First notes here that Wal-Mart workers' children in Georgia
> enroll in PeachCare (the state's low-cost health insurance for
> low-income children) at such a high rate that they outnumber the
> enrolees at the next-highest private sector employer by 14 to 1. GJF
> notes that this is a form of public subsidy to a low-wage employer whose
> workers cannot afford health insurance.

I've heard these kinds of claims before, but I'm not sure I like where
this analysis leads: if we actually had a universal health care
system, by the logic above, we'd be providing an even bigger
"subsidy" to Wal-Mart (and all businesses with employees).  Is
that such a bad thing?

Miles

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk