"More!" Is the cry of the unskilled worker. "Can't!" Is the cry of the businessman. These two are usually at odds in the economic world. Both may be right. That's the problem. Many small companies can't do better, and at least some may not be able to make $15 per hour payments. Everyone who thinks about this, thinks "$15 an hour..." However, it's not just that. Many years ago, when I did taxes, I did them for a few employers. What appalled me was what it actually costs an employer to pay that money. There's 8% (or so) FICA tax, about 8% Unemployment insurance, Workmen's Comp insurance, and Federal Unemployment. It works out to over $20 an hour, not $15. So there is some rationale for an employer to say, "I can't be profitable if I pay these wages." On the other hand, the worker has the same argument. He says, "I can't survive on what the employer will pay." Thing is, he's right. Neither side is lying. Both are telling the truth.
The proposed answers have been these:
Wealthy people are certainly not all bad, but 'way too often I've heard the equivalent of "Let them eat cake" from the wealthy. Many people with money don't have the sense of responsibility that goes with employment. When you hire someone for full-time work, you do owe them proper care, so that they can feed their families, live in a place with dignity, and provide the things the family needs. It's become pretty customary to offload those responsibilities on to a foreign country, and make the problem "go away." I suppose the reasoning is, "I can't see the woman who stitches my shirts for 50 cents a day, so I don't have to worry about her. She's the problem of her employer."
They do this so that they can rent cheap labor. Problem is, these were actually fairly good jobs before they were exported. People in the US made bicycles, shoes, coats, pants, socks, furniture, kitchen utensils, belts, books, Bibles, etc. etc.
Which is why we have people who work at McDonald's crying for higher wages--because jobs that used to go to people who wanted full time work actually paid a living wage.
However, two things happened.
1. Businesses imported people to do these things--normally illegals, or "quasi-legals," because they could cheat them in their pay, again because these men and women fear deportation. This invaded the construction industry in about 1970, and by the year 2000, almost all those jobs were gone. When the partly legal / mostly illegal folk began to demand more money, those jobs were moved offshore, or to Mexico (after President Clinton signed NAFTA).
2. Businesses are still doing this. They export jobs by purchasing items from overseas that could as easily be made here. Interestingly, they blame the American people for this, as if WE had chosen this path. In addition, they import skilled workers under the H-1B visa program, because they can pay them less.
As a consequence, we have people wanting jobs at McDonald's because there are no others--and wanting to be paid a living wage. No surprise, really. Everyone would like to be able to afford a hamburger (if only a cheap one) where he works. Under the current scheme, folks are not paid enough. It's that simple.
However, the solution, in my view, is NOT to pay people $15 at McDonald's. The reasons? Nobody will be able to afford the hamburgers, and that work is best as a truly entry level job, not a career.
My solution is simple: Stop exporting the jobs we now export. Stop importing people to do skilled work on H-1B visas. This will take a number of new laws (hate the idea, but there it is) that favor US workers getting US jobs, and that favor businesses keeping the work at home.
There actually ARE jobs for us all, and they can pay well. They just don't--and many jobs that could be there are not, because the legal structure of our nation favors the way things are now.
More on this another time, but here's a preview:
Corporations view their only responsibility as making money for their shareholders. However, like all businesses, they are part of an ecosystem. That ecosystem, to remain well, has to take more into account than share price and earnings per share.
The economists who read this will flame me, I'm sure, and their arguments sound plausible until you realize that each economist is a part of a heavily protected employment sector--some of the universities, some of "thinktanks," and some of the government. Each of these people has three things: Medical care, a good wage, and a decent retirement. They have no right to a voice unless they themselves are willing to experience what the rest of us do. They are like Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake." Well, guys and gals, there's no cake. What you really are saying is, "Too bad. I have mine, so you can eat cardboard."
The proposed answers have been these:
Wealthy people are certainly not all bad, but 'way too often I've heard the equivalent of "Let them eat cake" from the wealthy. Many people with money don't have the sense of responsibility that goes with employment. When you hire someone for full-time work, you do owe them proper care, so that they can feed their families, live in a place with dignity, and provide the things the family needs. It's become pretty customary to offload those responsibilities on to a foreign country, and make the problem "go away." I suppose the reasoning is, "I can't see the woman who stitches my shirts for 50 cents a day, so I don't have to worry about her. She's the problem of her employer."
They do this so that they can rent cheap labor. Problem is, these were actually fairly good jobs before they were exported. People in the US made bicycles, shoes, coats, pants, socks, furniture, kitchen utensils, belts, books, Bibles, etc. etc.
Which is why we have people who work at McDonald's crying for higher wages--because jobs that used to go to people who wanted full time work actually paid a living wage.
However, two things happened.
1. Businesses imported people to do these things--normally illegals, or "quasi-legals," because they could cheat them in their pay, again because these men and women fear deportation. This invaded the construction industry in about 1970, and by the year 2000, almost all those jobs were gone. When the partly legal / mostly illegal folk began to demand more money, those jobs were moved offshore, or to Mexico (after President Clinton signed NAFTA).
2. Businesses are still doing this. They export jobs by purchasing items from overseas that could as easily be made here. Interestingly, they blame the American people for this, as if WE had chosen this path. In addition, they import skilled workers under the H-1B visa program, because they can pay them less.
As a consequence, we have people wanting jobs at McDonald's because there are no others--and wanting to be paid a living wage. No surprise, really. Everyone would like to be able to afford a hamburger (if only a cheap one) where he works. Under the current scheme, folks are not paid enough. It's that simple.
However, the solution, in my view, is NOT to pay people $15 at McDonald's. The reasons? Nobody will be able to afford the hamburgers, and that work is best as a truly entry level job, not a career.
My solution is simple: Stop exporting the jobs we now export. Stop importing people to do skilled work on H-1B visas. This will take a number of new laws (hate the idea, but there it is) that favor US workers getting US jobs, and that favor businesses keeping the work at home.
There actually ARE jobs for us all, and they can pay well. They just don't--and many jobs that could be there are not, because the legal structure of our nation favors the way things are now.
More on this another time, but here's a preview:
Corporations view their only responsibility as making money for their shareholders. However, like all businesses, they are part of an ecosystem. That ecosystem, to remain well, has to take more into account than share price and earnings per share.
The economists who read this will flame me, I'm sure, and their arguments sound plausible until you realize that each economist is a part of a heavily protected employment sector--some of the universities, some of "thinktanks," and some of the government. Each of these people has three things: Medical care, a good wage, and a decent retirement. They have no right to a voice unless they themselves are willing to experience what the rest of us do. They are like Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake." Well, guys and gals, there's no cake. What you really are saying is, "Too bad. I have mine, so you can eat cardboard."
No comments:
Post a Comment