Its subsidizing because Havard is getting their labor for less than its actual cost (the minimum cost of labor being the basic living needs of those doing the labor). The government is covering the difference - therefore subsidizing Harvard who absolutely have the means to pay they full cost (and then some) themselves.

Humans aren't ec2 instances that you can spin up/down at will. "the basic living needs of those doing the labor" exists whether or not they're working. It's a sunk cost, unless we as a society are willing to let them die of hunger.

This doesn't mean that Havard should get the benefits of people's hard work without paying the full cost for it.

Indeed. I wonder if those in this thread believe this logic applies to every government benefit / transfer.

If GM isn’t paying a single mom enough that her kids don’t earn out of receiving Pell Grants, is the Department of Education “subsidizing” GM?

Social Security is a net payout win (i.e. a transfer payment, long term) for most lower-income workers. Is it subsidizing employers?

The “living wage” argument is really an argument that the government should turn over the responsibility of running the social safety net to private businesses (e.g. Harvard must pay a single mother more—enough to level past food stamps). I don’t think this is actually anyone’s desired end-state.

>The “living wage” argument is really an argument that the government should turn over the responsibility of running the social safety net to private businesses (e.g. Harvard must pay a single mother more—enough to level past food stamps).

While I understand your argument and it's not factually wrong, it misses a few key details - chiefly the one that private businesses continue to try to lower costs by any and every means necessary, including seeking out and taking advantage of cheaper labor, and by participating in regulatory capture. Both of these are highly counter-productive to the overall health of the country's economy. If private businesses insist on being able to pollute, engage in anticomptetive practices, corrupt our lawmakers - all to ensure that they make more money, we have to as a society insist that yes, they MUST pay more to their laborers, especially if the businesses insist that they continue to pay their C-Suite an inordinate amount of money for no particular reason.

I’d rather just eliminate the regulatory capture!

A system where corporations take on government responsibilities in return for monopoly powers and other market barriers is something like the worst of all possible worlds.

It is a bad system, for sure, but the problem is that the stock markets reward corporations time and time again for entrenching themselves into monopolistic positions within their respective economic sectors.

Regulatory capture sucks, but good luck telling a congressman that they can't accept ~bribes~ donations or promises of cushy future employment situations (or jobs for their relatives) in exchange for favorable legislation. Those who are uniquely positioned to end the problem are also uniquely positioned to reap tremendous rewards from ignoring the problem.

> If they didn't work for Harvard the government still need to pay for the food stamps.

This is a bizarre argument. Harvard graduate students aren't doing it for graduate student pay, as if they couldn't get better paying jobs. Graduate school is just a temporary gig, a pit stop for the sake of their much higher life ambitions. They wouldn't be on food stamps if they weren't grad students.

>Graduate school is just a temporary gig, a pit stop for the sake of their much higher life ambitions. They wouldn't be on food stamps if they weren't grad students.

If you're putting it that way, being an undergraduate is even worse. Like graduate students, their program is "just a temporary gig, a pit stop for the sake of their much higher life ambitions", but unlike graduate students you don't even get paid. Should we also be mad that undergraduates are on food stamps?

> unlike graduate students you don't even get paid

That's because they aren't doing work for the university, unlike graduate students.

> Should we also be mad that undergraduates are on food stamps?

Yes? Of course! It's strange that you didn't seem to anticipate this answer.

If you turn it around that way, a person who is working for Harvard but not getting enough money from them to pay for the basics is the one subsidizing Harvard. It's giving them the benefit of the work and undercharging them for it, and making up the difference with food stamps.

> making up the difference with food stamps.

in other words, the gov't is subsidizing the cost of said person, who in turn, is "subsidizing" harvard. So by the transitive rule, the gov't is subsidizing harvard.

The government heavily subsidizes every university, both directly (in the form of research grants, student loans, etc.) and also by setting up a favorable tax structure. Governments subsidizing universities results in large social benefits, and should generally be applauded, though the form of those subsidies could use some structural changes.

The home mortgage interest deduction is the same thing, mathematically. Is Harvard also being subsidized by the Feds via rich professors living in Cambridge?

Yes!

OK well, now all government benefits (and roads, and defense, and NIST, …) are “subsidies”, and it’s not clear why taking advantage of one—by Harvard or anyone else—is somehow counter to the reason the government is spending the money in the first place or otherwise worthy of scorn.

Now you've got it. We're a democracy and we tax ourselves to buy things for ourselves.

There’s also the condition that graduate students can’t simply leave to find better work. This is very shitty behavior from the school.

It’s shitty to advise them to take advantage of government benefits available to them? What’s special about TANF in this regard? As others here have pointed out, for some families in Cambridge the eligibility ceiling for some benefits is quite high.

It isn't just Harvard. I think you are saying this person could be working anywhere, so why is this Harvard's problem?

But other companies are also doing this, Walmart being biggest example.

If there is entire group of people that is subsidized labor, then yes all the companies are benefiting. Harvard just seems like extra disgusting because they are a rich institution of learning, and should do better. While for Walmart, we kind of expect them to use slave labor, it is expected.

I've seen a lot of commentary on Walmart over the years FWIW,

https://www.mic.com/articles/104994/walmart-workers-have-a-b...

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/walmart-mcdonalds-larges...