It boggles the mind how Americans in general will go to the ends of the world to express their views (for or against) on someone else's sexual preferences but when it comes to their own compensation they become mute. When the debate ending DOMA was raging strong people from all walks of life put in their two cents worth. Passions were high - those in support marriage equality were 100% behind President Obama - held his feet to the fire where they felt it necessary, the push itself was unrelenting to say the least. Those against it, equally passionate - foreseeing the end of the world as we know it, made their voices heard and continue putting an equal amount of pressure trying unsuccessfully to sway things back to their way of thinking.
In 2014, though some conservatives still continue to fight a losing battle to prevent marriage equality, President Obama has moved onto making income inequality the next war-front but this time round it appears he is on one side by himself, and on the other side is corporate America fighting hard to keep their margins in place. The American people (for whom Obama is fighting to increase their compensation with whatever tools he has available to him) are sitting quietly on the sidelines, being spectators as though they do not have any "skin in the game". That passion that was raging strong as it intrusively pried into the bedrooms of strangers has surprisingly lost its fervor.
There are those who feel that Obama's efforts are socialistic in nature being imposed on a capitalistic economy. These people hold the view that USA is the land of opportunity and that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything - you can build wealth, you need only pull yourself up by your "boot straps". Unfortunately for those struggling to pull themselves up into middle class the "bootstraps" that were provided in the form of a good education, well paying manufacturing jobs that came with good solid pensions and health insurance are no longer around as a way to the middle class. No, steadily Corporate America has been reducing the number of employees on one end while drastically the number and value of employee benefits; and basic compensation itself has not kept in stride with the every rising cost of living.
The biggest reduction in the workforce came as a result of the great recession of 2008. The majority of companies downsized their payroll by staggering numbers as they tried to stay afloat during very uncertain times. The employees that remained under employment saw their workload increase without the corresponding increase in compensation. Through 2009 and 2010 conventional wisdom was that one should simply be grateful that they have job at all and needing to be properly compensated for the work you did was a luxury many had to forgo. The majority of employees today still feel obligated to be grateful to have "A JOB" especially as unemployment remains relatively high for an economy that is supposed to have recovered. Most employees are extremely unhappy but do not dare switch jobs out of pure fear of LIFO - being the new kid of the block "last in first out"have. This is primarily why President Obama is fight income inequality by himself. People are afraid - they believe the threats that Corporate America is giving. Most continue to struggle and bridging the shortfall between income and expenses by dipping into their regular savings and retirement accounts.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the increase of minimum wage to $10.10 that the President is proposing will effectively increase the income of approximately 16.5 million people. Those pushing against the increase use the same report, stating that we need to save the jobs of approximately 500,000 that are likely to lose their jobs should the minimum wage be increased. Little is said about the 900,000 who will be raised out of poverty. As I have said before this baffles me somewhat. An employer is willing to let go some employees because he feels he cannot afford the payroll, cannot possible cut his profit or adjust his pricing somewhat. How cutting his labor affects his business is something that no one seems to bother explain. My assumption would be the remaining employees are asked to take on more work since they technically they have been given a pay increase.
If for the 500,000 losing their jobs was purely for the fact that they had least skill set and in turn they felt moved enough by the loss to improve themselves it would all be beneficial process in the end. Unfortunately most people when they lose their jobs its never about them but how wrong the employer was. I asked someone the other day why they temp, she replied it was because she had lost her permanent job and finding another one has proved difficult at best. "Why not try for a permanent position with the companies that you are temping with?" I asked her. "Oh they told me that in the current environment I did not have required skill set" she responded. "Did you ask what skills would be required ?" "No." To me she appears very content, content being stuck with no growth. Her lack of desire or drive to improve herself so that she has the relevant skill set is scary notion that she believes at some point employers will require less than they are now. So she waits. Were she nearing retirement one would try and understand but for a young woman in her late 30s mind-blowingly retarded.
No comments:
Post a Comment