Reducing unemployment won’t necessarily help our fiscal mess. It might actually hurt it. Wal-Mart employes tens of thousnads of people at very low wages. So low in fact that 80% of Wal-Mart’s employees need some sort of public assistance. Food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The cost of that assistance to federal and state govenrment is more than the cost of keeping those people jobless. Reducing unemployment is one thing. Paying workers a livable wage is quite another.
imhotep: While I agree that the cost of assistance is more than the cost of just letting the unemployed fend for themselves, and that reducing unemployment alone doesn’t solve all of our problems, I’m not sure I understand your point.
Does subsidizing WalMart by providing assistance to their workers cost us more than assistance to the unemployed? It might, but it shouldn’t.
If we had national health insurance, a living wage type minimum wage, and a true national pension, we could structure the system so that employers had no incentive to hire part-time vs. full-time workers.
WalMart is despicable in how much they care for their employees, but the current system lets them do it and provides strong incentives to keep doing business this way. We should take away those incentives.
I would also note in connection with the fiscal cliff and the raising of taxes, haven’t many Republicans, by agreeing to the law that creates the fiscal cliff, already agreed to raise taxes?
Why, yes, indeed, you are correct, Foraker!
~~~~
Also, these Repubs, ConservaDems, Obama and his economics team don’t seem very concerned about the effect on purchasing power that occurs when people lose them income, subsist on unemployment insurance.
But, oooooh!, a family might have to pay on average $2000 more in taxes?
What about having $20,000, $30,000, $60,000…or way more suddenly gone from their household budget? Think the Pete Petersons and these pols give a damn?
Where are the editorials, the headlines, the near hourly MCM (Maintream Corporate Media) questions about the effects of unemployment, especially long term unemployment, on consumers’ purchasing power and willingness to make purchases?
Sheesh.
Hypocrisy. Double talk. Flim-flam.
Foraker, another incentive for keeping the unemployed jobless is the Earned Income Tax Credit (Rebate). That little “gift” is only given to people with jobs. No job, no cash from the treasury. The Capitalists in this country have done everything in their power (buying our Congresspeople) to shift the cost of doing business onto the taxpayers while keeping all of the profits for themselves.
Reducing unemployment won’t necessarily help our fiscal mess. It might actually hurt it. Wal-Mart employes tens of thousnads of people at very low wages. So low in fact that 80% of Wal-Mart’s employees need some sort of public assistance. Food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The cost of that assistance to federal and state govenrment is more than the cost of keeping those people jobless. Reducing unemployment is one thing. Paying workers a livable wage is quite another.
imhotep: While I agree that the cost of assistance is more than the cost of just letting the unemployed fend for themselves, and that reducing unemployment alone doesn’t solve all of our problems, I’m not sure I understand your point.
Does subsidizing WalMart by providing assistance to their workers cost us more than assistance to the unemployed? It might, but it shouldn’t.
If we had national health insurance, a living wage type minimum wage, and a true national pension, we could structure the system so that employers had no incentive to hire part-time vs. full-time workers.
WalMart is despicable in how much they care for their employees, but the current system lets them do it and provides strong incentives to keep doing business this way. We should take away those incentives.
I would also note in connection with the fiscal cliff and the raising of taxes, haven’t many Republicans, by agreeing to the law that creates the fiscal cliff, already agreed to raise taxes?
Why, yes, indeed, you are correct, Foraker!
~~~~
Also, these Repubs, ConservaDems, Obama and his economics team don’t seem very concerned about the effect on purchasing power that occurs when people lose them income, subsist on unemployment insurance.
But, oooooh!, a family might have to pay on average $2000 more in taxes?
What about having $20,000, $30,000, $60,000…or way more suddenly gone from their household budget? Think the Pete Petersons and these pols give a damn?
Where are the editorials, the headlines, the near hourly MCM (Maintream Corporate Media) questions about the effects of unemployment, especially long term unemployment, on consumers’ purchasing power and willingness to make purchases?
Sheesh.
Hypocrisy. Double talk. Flim-flam.
Foraker, another incentive for keeping the unemployed jobless is the Earned Income Tax Credit (Rebate). That little “gift” is only given to people with jobs. No job, no cash from the treasury. The Capitalists in this country have done everything in their power (buying our Congresspeople) to shift the cost of doing business onto the taxpayers while keeping all of the profits for themselves.