In my experience it was a fear thing. I was surprised to find that my colleagues had no employment contracts, they can and were sacked without notice or warning and without compensation.
This is fairly recent and a result of ALEC "Right to Work" laws (which is orwellian speak for right to fire at any time with no reason).
Business and GOP have collaborated since Reagan to gut unions and associations for workers and have been rolling back the rights of workers ever since.
There are plenty of international productivity stats produced. The US is generally high up them, but there are plenty of buts.
Curiously I don't think those measure productivity but profits. By cutting union rights, installing fire at will legislation, and sending jobs to foreign soil the corporations effectively leave workers doing the same job for less pay. That boosts profits but not productivity.
When I lived in Canada I had four weeks vacation. When I moved back to the US I was offered 2 weeks standard, but bargained for 3.
If those in the US are more productive per hour and they work more hours too then in terms of productivity per capita they must be absolutely kicking butt.
Curiously I have seen graphs of productivity against time showing a clear trend to increased productivity over time.
They also show corporate profits following that trend while worker wages are flat-lined or decreasing.
This shows that the benefits of increased production are going to the top 1% and are not being shared by the people actually responsible for the work.
In my experience the work morale has dropped as the benefits of that extra work are siphoned off to the top, that people care less about the quality, that they don't enjoy work anymore.
So the question to you is: does increased production really result in a good measure of the social benefit?
Do we need increased production if the common worker doesn't benefit from it?
In terms iof international comparisons how can we measure whether the US or European model leads to better outcomes for all/most in terms of standard of living and quality of life?
Good question.
One way would by by how the benefits of production are distributed among the employees; another would be by how the least well-off people are treated; a third would be by how much free time a person has to do what they want to do rather than what someone else wants them to do (hours per day, days per week, weeks per year).
Money doesn't measure happiness, so money is de facto a bad metric.
If we divided minimum wage by maximum wage America would rank near the bottom.
This thread is about Working Conditions and Benefits, so we should review the status of these.
Back when "America was Great" (the 1950's) unions were strong and the middle class had a fair(er) distribution of the profits from production.
Since then unions have been decimated and along with it the power of workers the negotiate for fair(er) wages. Unions were demonized (see Hyroglyphx's post above) so that people are no longer proud to be union members. I believe same is occurring in UK.
So now we have broad base demonstrations for minimum wage increases to catch up to the relative position they had under unions (and which benefited non-union workers as well as union workers, especially in middle management jobs for the middle class).
The unions gave us the 40 hr work week, vacation time, health benefits, safe working conditions, and the like; things that have become law for all workers, and this is the model for moving forward with progressive domestic policies, to use the laws rather than exclusive unions which have outgrown their need.
Emphasis on the workers in general getting a fair shake of the production pie is what has made Bernie Sanders so popular.
It is also why he got the endorsement from the Working Families Party as his policies match up to theirs:
quote:Working Families is fighting for a brighter future for America.
One where the economy works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected. One where politicians are accountable to working people, instead of Wall Street lobbyists and corporate CEOs. One where all of us, no matter where we come from, can find a good job, get healthcare when we need it, afford a home, send our kids to good schools, and have a secure retirement.
We’re electing the next generation of progressive leaders and building grassroots power to renew the American Dream. ...
I've said before that Unions served a valuable service to workers, but that they should have expanded their goals to include all workers, and evolved to get their issues addressed in public laws that apply to everyone. This would involve a "labor party" in America (like you see in other nations, like UK), but the US is hog-tied by the two party system due to the way voting is done (third parties are just not that viable an option here)/
This is what Working Families is doing, by working within the Democratic Party to shift it to progressive goals (as the Tea Party shifted the GOP to the extreme right).
We KNOW that GOP (corporate) "trickle-down economics" is just a tool to concentrate wealth at the top at the expense of all lower levels. We KNOW from the economic meltdown (from big bank\corporate greed and gambling with mortgages etc) started at the bottom and took down the whole house of cards, that the true economy is trickle-UP.
That was one question at the heart of a report by a London-based think tank.
Each year, the Legatum Institute ranks countries on theirProsperity Indexby measuring performance oneight subindices.
Where's the freest place in the world? A London think tank has the answer.
Amongtheir most notable findings for 2015is a new global leader for personal freedom.
That would be Canada.
The Canucks ascended five places since the previous year to take the #1 seat for personal freedom.
They took the top spot because over 92% of survey respondents said they believe Canada is both welcoming to immigrants and "tolerant" of ethnic minorities, and 94% feel they have the freedom to shape their own futures.
I'm economically conservative (I think unemployment insurance and many mandates tax job hiring thus hurt poor people prospects plus are benefits that are designed to help upper income people pay their bloated mortgages) on business regulatory issues, but the Republicans are a bunch of plastic cookie cutter drones (Paul Ryan only rehashes tired old crap and is portrayed as an "intellectual" in the media).
Part of the problem is that welfare and other support programs actually penalize people who get some work by cutting benefits by the amount they earn (leaving them with the cost and time invested in getting to and from) so it disincentives getting small time work.
I look forward to a Sanders win. It will force some real discussion of many issues.
What we see is that the US is reinventing\rediscovering a lot of socialist programs such as minimum living wage, overtime pay, paid sick leave and wage equality issues.
Ran across this interesting pair of (worth 50 minutes each) videos on facebook about defining "socialism" and it's history:
Note that they start at the same point with equivalent values, then Democratic Progressive policies were enacted in Minnesota and regressive Republican policies were enacted in Wisconsin.
It is a SLAM-DUNK that the progressive polices work better that the regressive ones.
... The Republicans picked a really bad time to go after birth control (2012) lol.
It truly amazes me that they still get elected with all the people that they have gone out of their way to alienate for ideological (bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, etc) reasons.
I think we're asking the wrong questions and pushing the wrong initiatives to ensure people have decent lives.
Indeed. There are so many programs that seem to be band-aids rather than a comprehensive plan. Unemployment, Food Stamps, Disability, Affordable Housing, Subsidized Housing, Social Security, Health Care, etc etc etc
What we are basically talking about is a base standard of living for everyone, yes?
What we are basically talking about is a base standard of living for everyone, yes?
That's a fine goal to aspire to, but what kind of plans would you implement it to make it become a reality?
Well one thing to consider is that we pay for this one way or the other.
Certainly there are a lot if programs that address different parts of this issue, and some of them may be considered social programs: unemployment, social security, food stamps, housing assistance, etc etc
And some of them could be considered anti-social programs: police, home security systems, security guards, ghettos, prisons, etc etc.
One question is how do we want this mix to operate and can we effect some cost cutting measures.
Another question is what level of basic service do we want to provide.
Police and home security systems are anti-social? Can you elaborate?
Yes. Instead of helping, supporting and uniting people, their purpose\goal is to suppress, isolate and divide people -- we have the largest prison population per capita of the developed nations because of this.
People will do anything to survive, and if the means are not available to do it lawfully, then they turn to criminal means: stealing, fraud, etc. Police then reacts to this to suppress "crime" -- treating the symptom and not the cause.
Crime rate ~same, but prison population in Wisconsin is >2x Minnesota, parole population is >3x Minnesota while probation population is ~2.5 higher in Minnesota than Wisconsin
ie more offenders in Minnesota are on probation (where they can be with family and earn a wage) while more offenders in Wisconsin are in jail (where they are kept from family and work).
And total incarceration costs overall are significantly higher for Wisconsin than Minnesota. So Wisconsin is paying more to house inmates in bunkhouse jails and in loss of worker income.
Both of these states spend a lot of money to control criminal behavior, so the question is -- what is the root cause of criminal behavior.
quote:We were looking at whether we could see a crime trend that moved over time in regard to what we call ‘shocks,’ changes in policy, explains Cohen. These shocks impart change, so if there’s a trend, the rate-of-change-of-crime should increase or decrease, but ultimately, among the 18 states that had raised the minimum wage, there was no significant change — in this speculation — a drop, in violent crime and property crime. If raising the minimum wage is meant to impart a change in crime rates, we should have seen a more pronounced deterrent from crime.
So I read this to be a small and relatively insignificant drop in crime with higher minimum wages, however they were not compared to living wage levels, just to the Consumer's Price Index. As wages remain below living wage levels, the economic impetus for crime to compensate remains.
Minimum wage was increased here from ~50% of a living wage to ~60% ... not a big help in reducing poverty imho.
What we DO see is a reduction in the use of SNAP (food stamps) by people with higher minimum wages.
Again, it is a matter of how we pay for basic standards of living, because we do end up paying one way or the other.
Just paying people more is a short term solution, and how does one go about that anyhow? ...
The simplest way would be a minimum annual living cost benefit, run as part of the IRS tax structure, and replacing minimum wage, unemployment, food stamps, welfare, social security, etc. etc.
Indexed to cost of living -- everyone gets a weekly check, monthly check or annual check\tax deduction, depending on your choice.
Wages above that would be earned additional income, and employers could offer anything from 1 cent/hour up, but they would have to pay enough to make it attractive to the worker.
There isn't 'a' root cause; it's complex. The summarised position is that crime is normal - that is, we're all capable of and even willing to commit every crime if the circumstances permit. Circumstances are the complex bit - opportunity and propensity are two main chunks, each influenced by numerous factors - age, sex, upbringing, state of mind, environment, genetics, chance of being caught, beliefs etc etc etc.
And I agree but we could also admit that there is possibly some correlation to"(perceived) need" and "opportunity" and that crime would tend to increase with an increase in either. The basic impetus of laws and courts and security systems and police is to reduce "opportunity" while the impetus of social programs is to reduce "(perceived) need" (a well fed person doesn't steal food, when a starving person would, given the same opportunity).
If a living pension\wage\dividend provided one with shelter food and security, then the need to resort to crime to obtain these would be lessened.
I don't think the USA allows people to starve on the streets unless they are rejecting help? ...
Florida made it a felony to feed homeless people, and arrested a pastor that was handing out food.
Cities (republicans) have passed laws making it illegal to sleep outside at night - I don't know what the punishment is for breaking these laws, probably put them in jail.
... Most low level theft isn't to survive, it's to support drug and alcohol addiction.
I think it's a stretch to suppose that higher beneits or that increasing minimum pay rates would reduce crime given that basic needs are met. ...
So if "basic needs are met" then would that not "support drug and alcohol addiction" ??? (Especially if decriminalizing and treating drugs would be part of the program).
... The evidence is rather against it - in the last recession crime rates fell.
Its harder to steal from poorer people, especially when they are in concentrated locations.
But I do agree that pursuing a living wage is a worthy goal in its own right.
People should be able to work a 35-40 hour week and get health, sick leave and health benefits, food and shelter, with time for family and some rest and relaxation.
... They do it because free shit is better than paying for it or they have some kind of addiction to support. There's not too many cases of people stealing loaves of bread for their hungry children but there are plenty of cases of people stealing cars and stripping them for parts.
I would say because it is easier than getting a well paying job, and because our society values things highly and people not so much.
I definitely agree with that last statement. Either we pay more in SNAP or we pay more income. But isn't this substituting one problem for another? The U.S. Congressional Budget Office reports that raising the national minimum wage can and does result in the loss of jobs.
To be fair, we would have to look at what kinds of jobs are being lost -- if it is sub-poverty wage jobs, then those should be lost, and if a business can't survive without such jobs then it should not survive. Such jobs are ways to steal life from people to pad someone's pockets -- putting money over people.
Another aspect that is rarely discussed is that currently people are working 2+ jobs to get enough to live, working long hours for sub-poverty pay rates, and with a living wage this is no longer necessary -- and that frees up jobs. In other words there would be fewer jobs but more people in the workforce.
The final aspect I would bring up is that this dip would be temporary as people adjusted to the new system. The economy would grow from more money flowing at the bottom, people having more leisure time and money to spend on discretionary consumption rather than necessities. This in turn would boost small business and provide for their growth ... and new jobs, jobs that pay a living wage.
As of now, 1 in 7 Americans are on SNAP. If there was a national increase in minimum wage, we could see that ratio double or even triple.
(March 2014) The weak U.S. economyreflected in higher unemployment, lower incomes, and widening inequalityis the main reason the number of Americans receiving federal food stamp benefits grew rapidly since 2000, reports James Ziliak, director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, in a recent analysis.
quote:SNAP helps low-income people buy the food they need for good health. You may be able to get SNAP benefits if you are:
Working for low wages or working part-time; Unemployed; Receiving welfare or other public assistance payments; Elderly or disabled and are low-income; or Homeless.
State public assistance agencies run the program through their local offices. The following basic rules apply in most States, but a few States have different rules.
The amount of SNAP benefits you can get is based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food Plan, which is an estimate of how much it costs to buy food to prepare nutritious, low-cost meals for your household. This estimate is changed every year to keep pace with food prices.
And it varies from area to area as food prices vary (at least in theory, but I don't think they compare food costs by area served, generally higher in low income areas?).
quote: It's not enough to make ends meet for the 21-year-old single mother. Stinnett and her son are on MediCal, the California Medicaid program. She relies on food stamps for her son, and borrows money from her family to buy diapers and pay rent.
That's because in the last six months, Stinnett has been scheduled to work 20 hours or fewer a week, which isn't enough to qualify for Wal-Mart benefits.
"I'm barely scraping by with what I make," she said. "I have no money whatsoever for emergencies."
The cost of low wages at Wal-Mart (WMT) are at the center of a new report released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Low wages are an issue across the economy, but Wal-Mart, as the country's largest private employer, has long faced closer scrutiny than other companies.
According to the report, the cost of Wal-Mart's low wages isn't just felt by workers like Stinnett, but also transferred to American taxpayers. The report zeroes in on Wal-Mart in Wisconsin. That's because the state releases information on how many workers are enrolled in its public health care program broken down by employer.
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
And Walmart record profits in the billions annually ... subsidized by the American taxpayer.
But that is not all of the effect of their sub-poverty wages, those wages make it hard for local businesses to compete and you lose jobs when those businesses close.
quote:1. The majority of SNAP recipients are children or elderly—and many work. A report released in November 2012 by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service shows that 45 percent of SNAP recipients were under 18 years of age and nearly 9 percent were age 60 or older. What’s more, more than 40 percent of SNAP recipients lived in a household with earnings.
So paying a living wage could reduce SNAP by 40% ...
If we consider that {paid wage + SNAP} ≡ living wage, and that {actual cost of worker} ≥ living wage
Then we are paying the employer {living wage - paid wage} = SNAP for them to do business -- they are subsidized by the taxpayer, they are the real 'welfare queens' ...
quote:2. SNAP is critical to keeping families out of poverty. SNAP plays a vital role in keeping families living on the brink from slipping into poverty. The latest poverty data show that SNAP lifted 4.7 million households out of poverty in 2011. Without SNAP, the child poverty rate would have been nearly 3 percentage points higher.
™ Version 4.2
