Conservatives, and the business community, and certainly the insurance industry, oppose health reform. I think that's pretty safe to say.
I had a thought today. Has there ever been a government intervention in the business world-say, a new tax or a new program or a new treaty-that the business community was resolutely against-decrying the risks and claiming it would ruin them and cost too much and put them out of business-and they were RIGHT?
Not that I can recall and I've been around since the dinosaurs.
ReplyDeleteElliott Spitzer, of all people, agrees with me:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/id/2232441/
Usually they find a way to stay in business, but the tax, regulation, etc does things like force them to lay off a bunch of employees, go overseas, etc.
ReplyDeleteThey are pretty good at passing the misery down the line so they don't have to suffer it.
The people you don't hear from are the people who have small businesses that are forced to shut down or the people who don't start their own businesses in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that big businesses can usually find a way to survive and pass the additional government costs on to us consumers. It's small businesses that get destroyed.
I know of a local restaurant that shut down a year or so ago. The owner claimed it had to do with the Massachusetts healthcare reform that went into effect a few years back. I don't know details, but I think if you hired more than X employees you had to pay a penalty fee to the government if you didn't offer health insurance. If I'm correct (I read the story online and can't verify it), the owner had to decide which was more expensive - paying the penalty fee to the state or offering health insurance to employees. Either way, the added expense cut too far into the profits of a small business that was barely breaking even as things stood. The business folded.
Again, I don't know details and don't know the owner personally. The story could be a load of you-know-what.
At any rate, with unemployment at 10% (much higher if you consider the people who are underemployed or who have stopped looking) we need to be careful about any changes in the law that will hurt the only group who can pull us out of a recession - business and industry.
Jeanne: A thing I wonder in a cynical way....
ReplyDeleteWalmart generally supports minimum wage increases. Why not? It won't make a difference to them. They pay above the rate anyway.
However, small businesses operate "on the edge", and having to pay employees more than their work is worth as per a minimum wage increase is an unfunded mandate... a mandate they are forced to pay, and quite often just can't afford. So small businesses get screwed even more, and more of them fail.
Hmmm. less competition for Walmart.
Never mind the thousands of people who end up fired by small businesses who can't afford to give these unearned handouts to employees. The lives of the people who are devastated by "minimum wage" policies are the last thing on the minds of those who back these policies.
Also, Jeanne said: " we need to be careful about any changes in the law that will hurt the only group who can pull us out of a recession - business and industry."
ReplyDeleteVery true. We had a hardline liberal governor in Michigan. State employees are generously overcompensated. Rather than cut this waste, she is cutting police funding and services to the poor. There's the Dems' priorities for you.
Anyway, she has long supported policies that encourage the auto industry to downsize or relocate elsewhere, and once when a major auto maker wanted to come to Michigan to build a factory, she joined with those who said that these jobs were not welcome in the state.
I have always been a fan (from afar) of Governor Granholm. I kind of wished she would be able to run for president.
ReplyDeleteObviously, DM doesn't agree.
I see what you're saying about the minimum wage-it puts a burden on all business, and that burden is disproportionate on small business, since they have less, well, business. (If Wal Mart does business in a state or town with an outrageously large minimum wage, they can amortize whatever losses they may occur, if any, over locations that don't have the minimum wage and thus would be more profitable.)
This talk about what your work is "worth" is troubling. When people talk about the outrageous money Alex Rodriguez makes, I usually respond that folks aren't willing to pay money to watch me work for 3 hours, thus, I make less than Alex does. You're worth what someone is willing to pay you-first, last, and always. If you complain about outrageous sports salaries, you're really arguing that the owners just keep the money instead.
But looking at it from the worker's perspective-shouldn't you be able to feed your family and occasionally go out for pizza if you go out there and break your back for 40, 50, or 60 hours a week? Is that REALLY too much to ask? Are we so terrified of other people that we can't even give them a chance? Is it so wrong that somebody else get a shot too?
Or is it all Hobbesian? Is it just nature, red of tooth and claw? If you get paid less than me, the hell with you. I have long argued that, carved above the entrance to the Republican National Committee Headquarters, should be the words of their real slogan, "I got mine. Screw you."
The thing that drives me crazy is we're both right. People should have a chance to earn a decent living. Businesses shouldn't have to pay people anything more than they have to.
And I don't know how to square the circle.
dmarks...I read a couple months ago in the Wall Street Journal that Wallmart was supportive of portions of Pres. Obama's proposed healthcare reform. Some people responded, "Oh, look, big bad Walmart grew a heart of gold." Others had the more cynical view you present. It benefits them to agree to government mandates that they can afford and their competitors (especially mom and pops) cannot.
ReplyDeleteI'm sympathetic to your view on the minimum wage. I'm not very loud about it, as in many places it's akin to admitting that you like to kick puppies and steal candy from small children.
Michael, you ask if the government should guarantee that you have the ability to feed your family. Yes, if there are children involved. But not through manipulating wages. I'm fine with taxpayer money being used to supply healthy food for children whose parents cannot provide food for them. It's welfare and it's morally sound.
You also ask if people shouldn't be guaranteed enough income to occasionally buy pizza for their family. Where do you draw the line of the luxuries we should ensure every American can afford? Should the government require that you have enough to buy take-out once a month? A movie once a month? A ballgame once a summer? At least one trip to disneyworld every five years? What constitutes a reasonably "good life"? It's a tricky question that should be answered by individuals, not governments.
Michael, you say people should have the chance to earn a decent living. Do you mean chance (which we all have) or guarantee?
Both the conservative and liberal movements concern themselves with what are the best policies for the largest number of people. I don't know of anyone who wants to screw anyone else.
A liberal will tell you wealth re-distribution is the only fair way. Take from the rich to "level the playing field" for the not-so-rich. In my opinion, the unintended consequences of this philosophy end up squelching any good that might come of it.
A conservative (at least this one) believes in having a safety net for the most vulnerable people in society; but that otherwise a vibrant, energetic economy is the only way to raise the standard of living for everyone.
In other news, happy Friday.
Happy Friday indeed.
ReplyDeleteI am not, in fact, saying that the government should guarantee my income. I'm saying that someone who goes out there and struggles and works 40 hours, or 50 hours, or 60 hours a week, should be able to pay their bills and have a decent standard of living. And the reason why they can't is because we don't care.
Michael, I have to push back a bit on your point.
ReplyDeleteYou say somebody who works hard 40, 50, or 60 hours a week should be able to pay their bills. Which one? 40, 50, or 60?
Also, are their bills their own or are we talking about supporting a family? If we're talking about supporting a family, how many kids?
I have two answers for you-I don't know and it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of Americans who work very hard, at 1, or 2, or even 3 different jobs, working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week. They should be able to take care of themselves and their families.
As you so wisely point out, small businesses can't afford infinite amounts of salary-they have to pay all their other bills and also their people.
I don't know how to balance those two competing interests.
I do care.
ReplyDeleteUnder your parameters, a single person working one job for 40 hours a week has as much "right" to "take care of" himself as a single parent of three who works 60hours a week at three jobs.
To the first guy, I say get a better job, work more hours, get better skills, and/or lower your cost of living.
To the second guy, I'm a bit more inclined towards the welfare you describe.
I should have been more clear.
ReplyDeleteYour distinction is a useful one-clearly someone pulling 3 jobs and 60 hours is working harder than someone with one job and 40.
I just don't feel comfortable judging other people's choices, because I don't want my own evaluated (probably because I am sure they will be found wanting.)
I just think a person who works hard and makes the right choices should get paid enough to live on.
I also think small businesses should be able to pay people what they are worth, and thus a low enough amount to keep the businesses viable.
Again, I don't know how to untie that Gordian knot.
You write, "I just don't feel comfortable judging other people's choices" and then write "I just think a person who...makes the right choices should get paid enough to live on."
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, you don't want to judge. On the other, you think there are "right" choices to be made. If some choices are right, someone's going to have to judge.
You can't have it both ways.
Again, I should have been more precise.
ReplyDeleteWhen I talk about someone making the right choices, I am aping a construction Bill Clinton used when he was running for president-people who go to work all day, and usually all night, and pay their taxes, and go to church, and just try to make it day to day. These people should be able to make a living.
Is the person who works 40 hours and coaches soccer and sings in the choir better or worse than one who works 60 or 70, ignores their kids and drinks themselves to sleep? Are both of them entitled to a minimum wage to keep food on the table? Neither of them?
I don't know. Judge not, lest ye be judged.