In keeping with my
tendency to read more about television than actually watching it, I am fairly
up on "Breaking Bad" even though I have never seen an episode. One of
the most interesting things I have read on it lately was an article exploring how
accurately it depicted meth:
It was interesting
from a scientific point of view, but what really got me was the section on meth
often being an economic necessity:
"There are
"functional" addicts, especially working mothers, who rely upon
strong stimulants like meth to juggle their sundry responsibilities. One
plausible theory has it that the rise of meth coincided with the rise of
low-paying low-skilled service work, where people had to work multiple menial
jobs to earn the same amount they used to earn in one manufacturing job, or
other good-paying low-skilled position...
This holds up if
you look at places where meth use is highest. Hawaii's heavy rate of
meth use has been attributed to its high cost of living and service-based
economy."
We went to Hawaii in 2006, and we
talked to a few locals. Everyone worked multiple jobs and had a lot of
roommates, and that was the only way to survive. Now, being on an island that
is several hours away by plane from the mainland, moving to an area with better
jobs and a lower cost of living is pretty difficult. Even if you're here,
though, moving is big. There can be application fees, paying deposits and the
first and last month's rent, possibly with moving costs, and those are purely
economic factors. Time is huge, especially if you are working multiple jobs.
This is the new
normal. McDonald's put up a budgeting tool that assumed that their employees
had a second job. They got a lot of flack for that, and then they had defenders
pointing out that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be temporary things. That
only works if there are better jobs out there.
We have had a
decent amount of economic recovery, in that a lot of corporations are
profitable again, and stocks are doing well. Job recovery is still an issue,
not just for quantity but for quality. Employers who took benefits away and
imposed wage cuts when things were tight have dragged their feet on bringing
things back. And why wouldn't they? Isn't it always better to keep as much as
possible for yourself? Okay, maybe not, because that money does not flow
through the economy like it could, producing more business, but hey, they've got
theirs.
This just isn't
sustainable, and I am going to go back to SNAP here. If people spent an average
of three months unemployed, and during that time collected unemployment and
SNAP, but then got good jobs, where they could support themselves and their
families, that program is probably giving you the right amount of good for the
money spent. People don't get too desperate during the bad time, and the bad
time is temporary.
However, if they
get the job and still need their food subsidized, or if they need two jobs, so
it is not enough to have a job for everyone, but everyone needs two jobs, the
pool of people needing help is going to be unworkable.
Let's pick on
Wal-Mart for a bit:
Again, their
employees are working. In fact, they are working horrible jobs for such low pay
that taxpayers need to help them buy food. That might be okay if it was a
struggling company on the verge of becoming successful - again with the idea
that the government can help you through the rough patches - but Wal-Mart makes
billions. They make more in pure profit than the government assistance
required.
This is the real
abuse. The bipolar person who complains about not getting disability and that
McDonalds doesn't take SNAP is annoying. Yes, she could probably be a more
productive member of society than she is, but you could have a million people
just like her and they would not be the drain on the taxpayers that Wal-Mart
is, or oil companies, or, well, that's a really long list.
Some time ago I
remember reading about how the changing economy required changes in rules. One
option would be greater government regulation of wages and healthcare, or the
other would be a much expanded welfare state. Very few people like being on the
dole. It's demoralizing. I prefer the other one.
Double the minimum
wage. Move to single-payer health care. Properly fund basic education and make
higher education free.
Does that sound radical?
It's not nearly as radical as this move towards corporate feudalism. Some
smaller companies will have a hard time perhaps, but this is a good place for
corporate subsidies. Once you get the additional income into the economy, that
will help a lot of businesses.
I do realize there
will be some concerns about working teenagers, and I was one for a long time,
so I get that. I don't propose allowing minors to be paid less, which will
surely lead to different problems, but I think you can make those under eighteen
exempt from any withholdings. They can't vote until they're eighteen anyway, so
it is taxation without representation.
There is a lot that
goes into it. There are scary things that are happening now that I have not
gotten into, and ways that things could work that I have not gotten into, but
my short point here is to point out the real enemy. And this is already long,
so I will save my other two points on that for Monday.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment