You could say that yes. But you could also say it's in our collective interest to help students achieve a higher level of education, and therefore we could/should choose to support this broken model.
You could make the claim that it's in our collective interest to keep WalMart profitable, but it would be something of a harder sell. IMHO.
What about food aid? Are the evil food conglomerates "taking money out of our pockets" by charging prices that some people can't afford and thus requiring a government subsidy?
Your theory that by democratically choosing to subsidize something, the government is creating an obligation on the part of private business to make the subsidy unnecessary is bizarre.
"Are the evil food conglomerates "taking money out of our pockets" by charging prices that some people can't afford and thus requiring a government subsidy?"
Who said anything about evil? I merely think that the labour market does not resemble anything like a free market (nor can it or should it), and at the moment employers are profiting handsomely while depending on the public purse.
"Your theory that by democratically choosing to subsidize something, the government is creating an obligation on the part of private business to make the subsidy unnecessary is bizarre."
I'm not sure that's my theory at all. My 'theory' is that income top-ups via food stamps, tax credits, whatever, where someone is employed, form an unofficial subsidy to employers, and one that I think we should be trying to find ways to eliminate. If one of the ways we choose to do that is by pushing more responsibility onto the employer, then I'm not sure I see a problem.
income top-ups via food stamps, tax credits, whatever, where someone is employed, form an unofficial subsidy to employers
Spell that out for me. When I hire Bob at $8/hour, what difference does it make to me whether the government is giving him a tax credit for being poor, or owning a home, or buying an electric car?
Bob can't feed himself or his kids on that, so I have to reach into my pocket (taxes) to help him out.
If I didn't do that, Bob and his kids would either slowly starve to death or move somewhere else. Either way, no more employee for you.
Why is it my responsibility to make up the difference, and not the McDonald's across the street that didn't hire him at all? Or the landlord who is charging Bob $400/month instead of $300/month?
What you're saying is perhaps rhetorically appealing, but it doesn't make sense.
You could at least attempt to explain why all the other people who receive the benefits of your generosity towards Bob aren't equally responsible. If Bob starves to death, his landlord loses a tenant. His grocer loses a customer, etc. What makes his employer special?
The others are more subject to market pressures. Take a look all over this thread for some really well-cited explanations of exactly why employment is not like these other things.
