How many times have you heard this as an argument to reduce government spending on welfare benefits? Many of the loudest critics of our nation of "takers" claim that spending on programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare are allowing citizens to develop a something for nothing mentality. Some figures even estimate that 49% of American households now receive some sort of social welfare.
Well, fair enough. Why exactly is it that so many people abuse services intended to help them get back on their feet? Why don't more people realize their own "American Dream", work hard, and find financial security on their own?
Because this issue is not in a vacuum, that's why. If we're to talk about welfare reform (which I believe we should), why would not also, in the same breath, bring up the vast income disparity afflicting U.S. workers? Wouldn't it make sense to talk about what people are getting paid hand-in-hand with why they need these benefits in the first place?
Conservative estimates put the number of "working poor" in the range of 146 million Americans. That is, workers - with jobs - generally with no savings, no retirement fund, living paycheck to paycheck and hoping no sudden cost springs up such as a sick child, their car breaking down, or housing repair. Some businesses thrive on the labor of their low-paid employees, with the typical worker receiving a paltry $13,900 a year. Executives, on the other, wrangled an average of $9.4 million in annual income, with an additional $175 billion - billion - going to shareholders. But hey! It's the shareholders that invested in the company in the first place! Their holdings allow the company to grow and expand and so they deserve their dividend! And the executives set the strategy and vision for the company to post a profit! They deserve it too! Ok. Fair enough. In that case, since it's the shareholders and executives that make dreams come true, let them roll up their sleeves and stock the shelves.
Wouldn't it, instead, make sense to take care of those individuals that actually do work? Those that actually make the company move forward?
Since 2008, 60% of the jobs created in the U.S. have been low-wage jobs. Now, I'm not saying anyone should claim to be "above" certain industries, regardless of education or background. If you need a job, get a job. Flipping burgers is a job. Get out, provide a service to the greater society.
But when 1 in 4 Americans are now earning less that $10/hour, we can't also assume that people are abusing the welfare system. At some point we have to realize that the system is abusing the people. Walmart, for instance, has been under the microscope for moving to "Flexible shifts", a move that critics say was designed to force full-time employees down to part-time, losing their benefits at the same time. One study estimated that workers for Walmart alone cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every year because of the giant's lack of benefits. At some point, we have to realize that when wealthy people set the salaries for other wealthy people, the social distance between rich and poor will only continue to grow. I say let the employees decide the reimbursement for the executives - then we might see change.
For more fun reading, check out these exciting pages!
A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
CEO Pay and the Top 1% (Economic Policy Institute)
Fortune 50 CEO Income Compared to Average Worker at Company (Payscale.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment