Why do I wince? Because I don't want to sound paranoid. I am neither a right-wing nor a left-wing extremist.
But as I look at the employment situation in the United States, I see a real problem. Not enough jobs. Not enough jobs that earn enough to live on in these expensive times. One answer that has been put forth is that we need to be educating people for the jobs of the future. People need to learn to do... whatever it is that's considered the leading edge of the working world.
There is a problem here. I will say it delicately. There are a lot of people out there who are not able to learn the new jobs, no matter how much education they get.
I'll say it indelicately. A lot of people, whether because they've fried their brains, because they were born that way, or because they have talents that are no longer useful in common life, are... well, some (of the "fried the brains or soaked 'em in alcohol variety) are stupid. If you do it to yourself, you're stupid. If you had it done to you (brain damage from birth, accident, genetic mutations, autism, and so on) you're not stupid. You're unfortunate. But you're probably having a really hard time finding a job, even so. And if you can't even figure out how to make your computer work for you, a career in IT is not in your future.
We need living-wage jobs for everybody. Not that everybody needs to be (or can be) wealthy--I'm not saying that. But we all need jobs, and we need to be able to meet the necessities of life (housing, food, clothing, medical care, and yes, recreation) from these jobs.
This means a couple of things. Either SOMEONE needs to provide living wage jobs (and by this, I mean either the government or private industry, or a combination of both) enough for every person who wants to work or SOMEONE (again, this can be the government, private industry, or a combination of them) needs to provide the necessities of life to those who need it.
Oh, dear. Now that does sound like an issue, doesn't it.
How many owners of private industry are willing to provide lots of living-wage jobs to whole bunches of Americans? Really? These are the companies (and the CEOs and the CFOs) that are outsourcing jobs to countries where the cost of living is lower, and thus the amount they pay for the work is lower.
How many owners of private industry are willing to provide housing, medical care, food, and all that) to people in the United States who need it, and who don't even work for them? Ha! Laughable!
Okay, now the government side. First, is anybody willing to guess how much it would cost the government to house, feed, and otherwise provide for every person in this country who doesn't have a job?
Let's pause here to cross our eyes.
Talk about deficit spending. Whoa.
Now, let's see how many politicians would even suggest such a thing. Keep in mind that a politician's first goal trumps all others: they want to stay in office.
I don't see the government seriously taking up this issue. The government can't even figure out how to do one part of this mighty mess--medical coverage.
Deficits. Trillions of dollars. Taxes. Separation between the very rich and the very poor. Hold onto your hats, folks. The divide is getting wider, and statistically, you're more likely to fall down to the depths of the very poor than to scrabble up to the heights of the very wealthy.
Yikes. Do I sound paranoid? Yeah, a little. But more seriously, if you lose your job and can't get another one that pays nearly as much, or if you lose your job and can't get another one at any amount of pay, you're in trouble. Ask anybody who's lost their home to foreclosure. It doesn't take much to find someone like this.
So. In a simplified fashion, that's the problem.
Answers, anybody?
Let's start here. Why do the wealthy get big tax breaks? In the past, one could excuse it by saying, "Well, these big corporations provide jobs for the less fortunate, so to encourage them to hire more people, we should give them a hefty tax break." This doesn't hold water anymore. The world has changed. Big corporations now provide jobs to people in third-world countries. They are providing bonuses to their own management. They are providing increased values for their stockholders.
I cannot see any reason why a person, or a corporation, that is wealthy doesn't pay the same percentage of tax, or a higher percentage of tax, than I do, or than my coworkers do.
To me, a good place to start is here: Every company that outsources work, even a small percentage of work, to a country outside the United States loses every tax break, and picks up several "outsourcing" taxes that negate the amount they save by outsourcing.
Let the stockholders whine. Let the CFOs scream. Why do stockholders and managers, who are after all just people with enough money to spare, decide how much they will pay in taxes?
Okay, I'm all tired out. I need another cup of tea. I'll have to continue my thoughts in my next post.
-Spottedcat
I guess my return question is "how many people would like the pay the cost of an item calculated with American labor rather than outsourced/overseas labor? Why do we complain when we ask for raises for ourselves but for prices of the items we buy/use to be cut.
ReplyDeleteWe contributed to this problem, and now we want to complain about the loss of jobs.
We did indeed contribute to this problem.
ReplyDeleteYou touch on a sensitive issue--raises. I like unions when they are defending me against a hostile supervisor, but I don't like them so well when they are protecting the really high wages some union members, in some jobs, are getting.
Perhaps looking at how Toyota does things? I don't know much about Toyota, but I do know they pay their workers less than the Detroit automakers do. The Detroit automakers are not turning out a superior product, despite their highly-paid workers.
I'd be willing to buy less and pay more for what I buy... if it was of good quality. How many of us really need half the stuff we buy? I've become seriously short of money, and it's amazing the things I have suddenly learned to do without.
The loss of jobs really bothers me. I don't know how many people other than me would be willing to pay more.
There is another component to this problem. When we went from pension plans to 401Ks, we started to rely more on the growth of the companies for the stock market. It is very hard for companies to maintain the double digit growth that market managers and others want to recommend a stock for purchase. There are only so many ways a maturing company can maintain double digit growth -- and most of those are not desirable. (Think Enron). Walmart entered the grocery business as a way to grow their business -- coke has done some interesting things.
ReplyDeleteBut, as long as anything less than double digit is what we expect to consider a company worth investing in . . . the other side of this problem will exist.
Ah, yes. Greedy companies. Retirements based on the stock market. Double-digit growth.
ReplyDeleteI think there needs to be a choice--people can invest their retirement in the stock-marked-backed 401Ks or the traditional pension plan. Myself, I had that choice. I work for the state. I chose the good ol' fashioned pension-style of retirement. I was advised by those who "knew" the stock market that I should do the other one. But I will only invest in the stock market with money I can spare. I can't spare my retirement.
Yikes. These companies and their growth... it's scary. Why are retirement plans now hitched to the stock market?
And more importantly, can they be unhitched?