Fox News host Tucker Carlson last week pointed out that some Amazon, Walmart, and Uber employees qualify for government safety-net benefits, and argued that “this system” — in which corporations owned by extremely wealthy people and families pay their workers wages low enough that some of their workers receive government assistance — is “indefensible.”
“Jeff Bezos isn’t paying his workers enough to eat, so you made up the difference with your tax dollars,” argued Mr. Carlson. “Next time you see Jeff Bezos, make certain that he says ‘thank you.’”
Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Many of his employees are so poor, you’re paying their welfare benefits. And he’s not the only tech billionaire offloading his payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it? pic.twitter.com/PdXBfQsHsq
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 31, 2018
Mr. Carlson’s argument reflects the increasingly common view on the populist right that when it comes to some firms, “big is bad” — that some large firms are inherently suspect because of their size.
His argument also makes him bedfellows with Bernie Sanders. As you can see in his tweet, he explicitly aligns his view with the Vermont senator, who is planning to introduce a bill today to tax large companies with employees who receive government benefits. As summarized by the Washington Post:
The bill . . . would impose a 100 percent tax on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees. For example, if an Amazon employee receives $300 in food stamps, Amazon would be taxed $300.
Senator Sanders is primarily motivated by concern about inequality, not size. But regardless of the impulse behind the Carlson-Sanders argument, it is wrong as a matter of economics and deeply wrong in its understanding of society. My Bloomberg column today discusses why.
First, Sanders and Carlson are confused about how wages are determined. To a first approximation, workers’ wages correspond to their productivity. Sanders and Carlson may wish that many workers could earn a significant multiple of their productivity over long periods of time, but that’s not going to happen in a market economy.
Because of this confusion, Sanders and Carlson’s argument is exactly backwards: If anything, Walmart and McDonald’s are decreasing government safety-net rolls by offering employment to lower-wage workers.
And since when does the senator think government spending is a subsidy to business? Should we interpret his “Medicare for All” plan as a multi-trillion-dollar subsidy to corporations?
Fundamentally, Sanders and Carlson’s argument reflects a deep misunderstanding of society. No one who works full time and heads a household should live in poverty. But the responsibility for keeping people who work hard and play by the rules out of poverty should not rest only with their employers. That responsibility is held by us all.
You can read my entire argument over at Bloomberg. Whether or not you agree, I look forward to your comments.