Food stamps do little to alleviate hunger; increase government dependence.

It's funny that you would call it a "conservative fantasy," because the next logical step is one of the biggest conservative bogeymen going: Mandatory Pre-K.

 

I don't think those are logically inconsistent, because I think the reason this is the conservative answer is that they know none of what they're advocating will ever happen anyway. So, cha-ching!

 

No spoilers!

 

As a general matter, though, I wonder how much we close the inequality gap/address poverty - and how cheaply - if we just fix our educational system.

 

The way we fix our educational system is to begin ensuring that more parents have the time, wherewithal and resources to be good parents. All of the things that you call "band-aids" -- higher wages, more time off, improved ability to collectively bargain, universal pre-K, affordable daycare -- are the tools that can help create better parents.

 

You know, I read something a few months back in which Wal-Mart execs said they'd favor raising the minimum wage.

So what's stopping Wal-Mart from raising wages on its own? Isn't that what Henry Ford did when he launched his enterprise? Isn't that what the guy running Costco is doing right now?

Or is Wal-Mart worrying too much about somebody grumbling for whatever reason... and is that grumbling really something Wal-Mart should be worried about?

 

My spitballing guess is that it would come from executive compensation, which would then make it difficult to recruit top executives. This is similar to when Warren Buffett says he should have a higher tax rate, and conservatives shout that he should just pay in extra unilaterally if he believes this so strongly.

 

What's stopping Wal-Mart is that it is a publicly traded company whose shareholders would not want to see the company voluntarily spending more on wages than it absolutely has to.

 

If the government raises the minimum wage, management has a strawman for possibly lower profits.

If the company raises wages on its own, management takes the heat from shareholders.

 

Put your economics thinking cap on and think this through:

1) Wal-Mart's prevailing wage is already in excess of the minimum wage (estimates from those least disposed toward Wal-Mart put it north of $8 an hour; others peg it even higher, in the $11/hour range)

2) An increase in the minimum wage would be a competitive hindrance to Wal-Mart's competition (smaller retailers with which Wal-Mart really competes).

So no wonder Wal-Mart would want an increase in the minimum wage!

 

Not that simple. While I agree with your point about the high marginal tax on the poor, I also believe the captains of industry have contributed significantly to poverty and growing wealth inequality by squeezing labor (directly and politically) in the name of shareholders. Workers, now less able to fend for themselves, are receiving a diminishing share of the wealth they help create. Of course, none of this helps poor people's children become better prepared to meet the demands of the modern workplace, either. In fact, it will deny them them the help they need (parental guidance, daycare, nutrition) and ensure the cycle continues.

 

The education system the 'i don't wanna pay no taxes for nothin'' forces are busy gleefully gutting.