Tax reform stumbling block
Tax reform stumbling block
Don’t look for a tax reform roll-out as soon as Congress comes back despite the aggressive timetable laid out by White House legislative director Marc Short. Part of the reason is that it probably...
Don’t look for a tax reform roll-out as soon as Congress comes back despite the aggressive timetable laid out by White House legislative director Marc Short. Part of the reason is that it probably won’t be ready yet. But it also has to wait until after the GOP congress passes a budget resolution, people close to the matter tell MM.
Because if Republicans lay out their tax reform plan beforehand, Democrats could use the budget vote-a-rama process in the Senate to try and attack individual pieces of the plan.
Read the full article here.
Paid Sick Leave Now Mandatory for Most Businesses in Jersey City
The Jersey Journal - January 24, 2014, by Terrence McDonald - When Jersey City in September 2012 became the first New Jersey municipality to mandate that most private businesses provide paid sick...
The Jersey Journal - January 24, 2014, by Terrence McDonald - When Jersey City in September 2012 became the first New Jersey municipality to mandate that most private businesses provide paid sick leave for its workers, Mayor Steve Fulop predicted a legal fight.
Four months later, and no lawsuit filed, the measure is now law.
Fulop called today “very exciting.”
“I think it’s going to help tens of thousands of working families in Jersey City,” he said at an event at Saint Peter's University.
Jersey City is the sixth city in the nation to force private businesses to provide paid sick time. The law affects employers with 10 or more workers, and was opposed by state- and countywide business groups.
Paid sick time laws have become a favored cause of liberals and labor unions. Both groups hailed Jersey City when Fulop first proposed the measure last year, and they extolled the city again today.
“This law respects the dignity of workers, protects the public health and will mean savings for businesses big and small. When workers can earn sick days, everybody wins,” said Phyllis Salowe-Kaye, executive director of the New Jersey Citizen Action and spokesperson for the New Jersey Time to Care Coalition.
Other cities that have implemented similar mandates include Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Seattle. New York City, which passed a similar law last year, is set to strengthen it under its new, more liberal mayor.
Business groups have opposed the mandate wherever it's been implemented, but in San Francisco, which in 2006 became the first in the nation to require paid sick leave, thanks to a voter referendum, some who opposed the requirement subsequently said it hadn't affected businesses much, if at all.
An audit in Washington, D.C., found the law had not led to fewer businesses opening, though local businesses owners said they had cut back on hours.
Michael Egenton, a senior vice president at the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, fears that paid sick leave, together with new health-care regulations and the state’s new minimum-wage increase, could convince businesses to relocate.
Egenton also expressed concern about local governments implementing these types of regulations.
“Whatever happened to the freedom of enterprise?” he said today, adding that he believes business owners will reward employees with benefits like paid sick time even if the government doesn’t force them to.
“If you’re a good worker, your boss will give you sick time,” Egenton said.
Source
Statement on Abercrombie & Fitch’s Ending of Just-in-time Scheduling
Following reports that Abercrombie and Fitch stores will no longer schedule employees for “on-call” shifts, an unnecessary scheduling practice that forces working people to put their lives on hold...
Following reports that Abercrombie and Fitch stores will no longer schedule employees for “on-call” shifts, an unnecessary scheduling practice that forces working people to put their lives on hold for hours every week without guarantee of work or compensation for their time, Elianne Farhat, Deputy Campaign Director for the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, released the following statement:
“Working families across the country understand that our time counts. Every hour put on-hold is an hour they cannot plan on using to spend quality time with loved ones, study for college classes or work a second job. On-call schedules unnecessarily disrupt working people’s lives and prevent us from being able to work hard and meet our off-the-clock responsibilities. We hope this announcement comes as part of a larger shift towards better scheduling practices at Abercrombie and Fitch, and we congratulate workers with groups like RWDSU and Retail Action Project for organizing and demanding an end to this unfair scheduling practice.
“Still, the fight goes on. Working people, just like those at Abercrombie & Fitch, are standing up across the country to demand fair schedules. Employers who use this unnecessary practice, like Bath & Body Works, Gap, Urban Outfitters and L Brands should follow suit and end on-call scheduling.”
Working parents and students as well as experts on scheduling and childcare issues are available for interviews.
###
The Fair Workweek Initiative (FWI), a collaborative effort anchored by the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), is bringing together leading worker, community and policy organizations across the country to raise industry standards and develop, drive and win policy solutions that achieve a workweek working families can count on.
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. Im Kim Brown in Baltimore.
Interests rates will remain unchanged. That coming out of this weeks meeting of the Federal Reserve in DC....
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. Im Kim Brown in Baltimore.
Interests rates will remain unchanged. That coming out of this weeks meeting of the Federal Reserve in DC. The official word from the feds, per their own statement, was that job gains have been solid, that household spending has been growing strongly, and inflation is running below expectations. But does this mean that the economy is actually doing well or are we still in a recession dressed up to appear better than what it actually is?
Joining us today from New York City is Jerald Epstein. Jerald is the co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. Hes also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald welcome back.
JERALD EPSTEIN: Thanks a lot Kim.
BROWN: Jerald lets start with the basics and then we can delve a little bit deeper. If the economy is showing the signs of strength as the Fed has indicated, then why didnt they raise interest rates now and do you think that they are likely to do so at all this year?
EPSTEIN: Well I think Janet Yellen whos the chair of the Fed, is aware that even though its been showing strength and the economy has been growing moderately for several years now, that theres still much more room to go. That is that wage growth has gone up a tiny bit more than inflation recently, its still pretty stagnant, pretty flat line and she knows theres still a number of workers out that who are so discouraged that they havent joined the labor force. So Janet Yellen is concerned about the labor force and the growth of wages but the problem is twofold. First of all, its always dangerous to raise interest rates around election time. So traditionally the federal reserve, theyll try not to do that, move interest rates right around an election. So thats one factor leading them not to do anything.
The second factor leading them not to do anything is that keeping inflation under control is one of their main mandates. They have two. Maintaining inflation at a low rate and they have a 2% target, and reaching high employment. Inflation is still below 2%. Theres really no signs of inflation going up. So theres no compelling reason from the point of view of the macro economy to raise interest rates.
BROWN: Its funny that you mention that the Fed is less likely to raise interest rates or even mess with the interest rate around election time because the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump has already accused Chairwoman Yellen of keeping the interest rates unchanged in order to appease the Obama administration. She of course has denied this. What are your thoughts?
EPSTEIN: Well I dont think she did it for Clinton or Obama. But it is I think a tradition and its common for Federal Reserves not to raise and certainly change interest rates right before an election. So she is in sort of a tradition of what the Federal Reserve typically does. And its also typical especially recently for politicians to make the Federal Reserve the whipping boy or girl for political reasons. Sometimes theres good reasons. For that.
But there was something kind of unusual for this meeting. In the recent meetings its been unanimous to keep interest rates the same or to mostly do what the Federal Reserve has done. But this time it was quite contentious. There were actually 3 people on the federal open market committee, the ones who make this decision who voted to raise interest rates.
This is kind of challenge to Janet Yellens leadership in this regard and it also shows what kind of pressure the Federal Reserve is under, particularly from the banks and the mutual fund industry, the insurance industry because with interest rates being so low, its very difficult for them to eek out much of a profit. And is typically the case when interest rates are very low for a very long period of time. Some sectors and very powerful important sectors of the financial industry push very hard for interest rates to be raised and they usually get a pretty good hearing at the Federal Reserve [be]cause the Federal Reserve has traditionally done pretty much what the banks have wanted them to do.
BROWN: Jerald it seems as if theres not enough agreement between the Federal Reserve and among every day Americans on how well this economic recovery is going. So lets unpack some of the elements of this. Starting with Chairwoman Janet Yellens comments on labor markets.
JANET YELLEN: Were generally pleased with the progress of the economy and the decision not to raise rates today and to wait for some further evidence that were continuing on this course is largely based on the judgement that were not seeing evidence that the economy is overheating and that we are seeing evidence that people are being drawn in in larger numbers than what I wouldve expected into the labor market and that thats healthy to continue.
BROWN: So the unemployment rate was under 5% in August and the caveat to that is more Americans are working part-time jobs. Plus, the gig economy is one way that people are surviving and supplementing their income. So is unemployment published monthly by the Bureau of Labor statistics, giving us an accurate figure on the number of Americans who are out of the labor force?
EPSTEIN: They dont have an accurate number. They have estimates and I think its true that theres still quite a few so called discouraged workers who are out of the labor force. Its also the case like we said in the beginning that wage growth has been stagnant. Look, the Federal Reserve has a real dilemma here. On the one hand and this is typically the case with Janet Yellen who I think does want to indicate that their policies have had some effect, otherwise nobody will want them to continue these policies. And she thinks that they have had some positive effect on employment and I think they have.
But on the other hand their policies cannot turn around the long run decline of our economy. We need much different kinds, much bigger, much more radical policies in terms of public investment to generate jobs, hiking the minimum wage to a living wage, providing much more in a way of a safety net for workers, protecting pensions and other investments. So the list is very, very broad and very deep. And the Federal Reserve has been pretty reluctant to go further down that list.
The Federal Reserve could do more. They could use different tools to invest directly in the economy. Theres a group called Fed Up which has proposed that they do this. But Janet Yellen and her committee want to stay pretty close to their broader toolkit that theyve developed and are really afraid to, I think take more radical action which they plausibly could take.
But in the end it really raises questions of the Federal Reserves legitimacy. Can they take some kind of really radical action without the broader government saying go ahead and do it? And until the political stalemate we have is resolved, Im afraid the Federal Reserve cant do much more and that means this kind of stagnation in wages and so forth is going to continue.
BROWN: Jerald you raise an excellent point about wage stagnation and how wages have largely remained flat going back 20, 30, and even 40 years depending on who you ask. But new census data this month says that household income jumped over 5% which is the largest such gain in decades but that top 1% of Americans saw an increase of around 7% rise in their income. If most of the economic recovery gained since the great recession of 2007, 2008--if most of these gains have gone to the top1%, does it still count as a recovery if its not being felt by the majority of Americans?
EPSTEIN: No it does and this has been a very lopsided so called recovery and yes there have been some modest gains for the middle class and some working class people. So the Federal Reserve actions have had some positive effect. But until you really change the structure, change the tax policies so that the wealthy have to pay more of their taxes so the multinational corporations cant park their earnings overseas and not pay any taxes like Apple and other corporations have been doing until you have much more aggressive jobs programs to bring about a Green transition and many other things. Were not going to have a real recovery. These kind of very small sorts of gains which are gains but arent enough are going to be the best were going to see.
BROWN: Jerald whats keeping inflation in check right now? Is it cheap oil prices?
EPSTEIN: Its several things. First of all, cheap oil prices and other commodity prices are one thing. But theyre also partially related to the headwinds in the global economy against economic growth. Chinas not growing as much so theyre not demanding as much oil and other commodities. Many other developing countries arent growing so fast. Europe isnt growing hardly at all.
So this really dampens the demand for all of these commodities and with these prices going down that does keep inflation in check. The other thing is, all of the forces that are keeping wages in check. That is, imports from China, the union busting thats been going on, the threat of multinational corporations to move abroad. All of these factors plus more are making it very difficult for workers to have their wages go up. Wages are a cost so that to some extent keep inflation in check as well.
And finally you have the retail industry thats subject to loss of competition that just keeps squeezing and squeezing and squeezing workers more and more. Until we get big increase in the minimum wage, until we get policies to put workers back to work at well-paying jobs, were not going to see real wages go up and were also not going to see prices go up very much at all.
BROWN: And lastly Jerald, the wealthiest Americans, the top 1% of Americans are fairing very well and we are experiencing income inequality probably at the largest gap since the Gilded Age. We have seen so many sickle economic bubble burst over the past 20 years with the tech bubble bursting in the late 90s and the housing bubble bursting in the mid 00s. Are we at risk of another such economic bubble burst on the horizon any time soon.
EPSTEIN: Yes, were always at that kind of risk. Its hard to see where exactly the bubble would come from. There are little bubblets going on all over the place that dont seem so broad and connected up with debt and the financial system that it seems as so were going to have a kind of bubble burst the way we saw in 2007, 2008 but we might have bubblets burst in the high tech industry and so forth. Whats more likely is this slow burn of stagnation and increases in distress effecting so many people in the United States except for the wealthy who will continue to do very well. Not only income inequality at all-time highs, wealth inequality, how much assets people own has grown and grow and grow and grown. If you look for example, if the net wealth, that is assets minus liabilities, minus debt of African Americans in this country. A report recently came out that said, the median net wealth of African Americans is zero. Theres no net wealth. So this system cannot continue to go in this form. It helps to explain a lot of the political disorder that were seeing. The political fighting up were seeing and its just going to keep going unless we have some fundamental changes in the economy.
BROWN: Indeed. Weve been speaking with Jerald Epstein. Jerald is a co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. Hes also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald as always, we appreciate you joining us here on the Real News.
EPSTEIN: Thank you very much Kim.
BROWN: And thank you for tuning in to the Real News Network.
End
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a
recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Source
High Road Workweek Partnership Invites Employers to Adopt a Fair Workweek
High Road Workweek Partnership Invites Employers to Adopt a Fair Workweek
As more retailers declare nationwide reforms to their scheduling practices – from ending on-call scheduling to providing greater advance notice – there is increased industry interest in...
As more retailers declare nationwide reforms to their scheduling practices – from ending on-call scheduling to providing greater advance notice – there is increased industry interest in understanding the impact of difficult work schedules on employees. Leading-edge employers are also starting to quantify the down-stream effects of ever-changing work schedules and excessive reliance on part-time staff, including higher turnover, chronic absenteeism, lower productivity, and unsatisfactory customer service. Many industry leaders now recognize that predictable, stable and flexible work schedules are not just good for employees, but are essential to meeting operational, sales and growth objectives.
At the Next:Economy summit, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative will unveil the High Road Workweek Partnership, a groundbreaking approach to the future of work, which meaningfully incorporates employee voice and scheduling equity values into scheduling technologies and management practices.
Achieving a High Road Workweek involves three key components:
A Partnership of Core Stakeholders: With a 360 degree view from engaging diverse stakeholders, employers can assess the impact of their current scheduling practices and envision a sustainable workweek;
The High Road Workweek Pledge: Translates core business principles into specific scheduling practices that encompass: Predictability and Stability, Adequate Hours, and Employee Input and Flexibility, and Equal Opportunity and Mobility; and
Measurable Implementation and Assessment: Innovative scheduling technologies, guidance for managers, and clear metrics will facilitate implementation of the pledge, while ongoing feedback from employees and a research-based assessment will ensure that new policies deliver the intended outcomes.
The High Road Workweek Partnership delivers lasting scheduling solutions and provides a framework for employers who want to be strongly positioned in the global economy, leveraging the latest technologies and integrating corporate social responsibility into workforce management to create meaningful employment.
“Employers of our country’s hourly workforce are at a crossroads. The worrisome scheduling trends that have come to public attention are persistent and challenging issues that affect both workers and the longevity of a company’s success. Through a meaningful collaboration with employees, a commitment to core scheduling principles, and an innovative use of workforce management metrics, any business is capable of implementing a high road workweek,” says Carrie Gleason, Director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy.
Professor Susan Lambert of the University of Chicago, a key architect in developing the framework for scheduling stability, says, “While this year marks tremendous progress in employers recognizing the costs that lean staffing and unpredictable scheduling has for both workers and business, employers will need to implement new metrics for their managers and find ways to incorporate more employee input to ensure these commitments to reform become consistent scheduling improvements. The High Road Workweek Partnership presents an innovative approach to helping employers implement measurable standards for fair work schedules across their operations.”
# # #
www.populardemocracy.org The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
www.fairworkweek.org The Fair Workweek Initiative, anchored by the Center for Popular Democracy and CPD Action, is driving the growing momentum to restore a workweek that enables working families to thrive. We are committed to elevating the voices of working people to ensure they can shape the solutions that work for their families – whether through improved industry practices or new workplace protections.
Fixing the Shift
Fixing the Shift
Hard on the heels of the Fight for $15 minimum wage campaign, a group that has won legislation or regulation changes involving work schedules in three states and seven cities is launching a drive...
Hard on the heels of the Fight for $15 minimum wage campaign, a group that has won legislation or regulation changes involving work schedules in three states and seven cities is launching a drive in Philadelphia. The Fair Workweek Initiative will kick off its campaign in Philadelphia on Tuesday, with a rally at 12th and Chestnut streets, followed by a march to City Hall, where organizers will demand that City Council pass legislation requiring fair and consistent schedules for hourly workers. Fair Workweek is an effort of the Brooklyn-based Center for Popular Democracy, which describes itself as an alliance of organizations promoting “an innovative pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.
Read the full article here.
Ana Maria Archila On Confronting Jeff Flake
Ana Maria Archila On Confronting Jeff Flake
NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Ana Maria Archila of the Center for Popular Democracy about her widely-publicized confrontation with Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona in a Capitol Hill elevator....
NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Ana Maria Archila of the Center for Popular Democracy about her widely-publicized confrontation with Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona in a Capitol Hill elevator.
Listen to the interview here.
The resistance is making one last all-out push to kill the GOP health bill
The resistance is making one last all-out push to kill the GOP health bill
More than 300 health care activists, disability rights advocates, and organizers gathered on second floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Monday morning to oppose Senate Republicans’...
More than 300 health care activists, disability rights advocates, and organizers gathered on second floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Monday morning to oppose Senate Republicans’ Graham-Cassidy health care bill.
The bill would sharply reduce spending for Medicaid by billions of dollars by tying it to medical inflation, blow up Obamacare’s marketplaces, and open the door for states to curtail protections for patients with preexisting conditions.
Read the full article here.
Democrats to introduce bills to challenge arbitration system
Democrats to introduce bills to challenge arbitration system
By Nick Niedzwiadek
ALBANY — Democratic lawmakers are expected to introduce a pair of bills to counter how corporations use binding arbitration to limit their financial exposure in legal...
By Nick Niedzwiadek
ALBANY — Democratic lawmakers are expected to introduce a pair of bills to counter how corporations use binding arbitration to limit their financial exposure in legal disputes.
Consumer advocates say corporations are increasingly requiring potential employees and consumers to agree to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute as a precondition for employment or use of a product. They say that such proceedings lack transparency, put people on an uneven playing field against well-heeled corporations and can leave people with little other legal recourse.
Assemblywoman Latoya Joyner of the Bronx and Sen. Brad Hoylman of Manhattan are expected to introduce a bill that would amend state labor law to allow employees or organized labor organizations the power to bring legal proceedings against an employer for potential violations as a stand-in for the Department of Labor — independent of any private employment agreement. The state would recover a portion of the fines assessed as part of such proceedings.
Senator Jose Serrano of the Bronx and Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh of Manhattan would establish a similar process for private citizens to seek civil penalties on behalf of the state for violations of consumer protection statutes if the applicable public agency fails to pursue them due to a lack of resources.
“Too often large companies take advantage of consumers by forcing them into signing 'take-it-or-leave-it' contracts that include hidden clauses requiring forced arbitration that heavily favor businesses,” Serrano said in a statement. “My legislation will create a level playing field and give the power back to the consumers in New York State by allowing them an opportunity to fight back when they are victims of fraud."
Several of the legislators are expected to announce the legislation at a protest in Manhattan on Thursday along with New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer and Public Advocate Tish James, according to organizers. Joining them will be a number of progressive groups, including the Center for Popular Democracy, Citizen Action, Make the Road New York and New York Communities for Change. The event will coincide with the release of a report called: “Justice for Sale: How Corporations Use Forced Arbitration Agreements to Exploit Working Families.”
"Legal rights are worthless if there's no remedy when laws are broken,” Kate Hamaji, a research analyst at the Center for Popular Democracy who authored the report, said in a statement. “Forced arbitration essentially allows corporations to opt out of the justice system by creating a private parallel system that makes it prohibitively expensive to seek justice and creates incentives for arbitrators to rule in favor of companies."
The report can be found here.
New York City Council Passes Bill Forcing Employers to Provide Paid Sick Leave
The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council...
The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council voted 45-3 to pass the New York City Earned Sick Time Act, a bill that will require employers with more than 20 employees to provide five paid sick days to each of them every year while mandating that those employees using their sick days can’t be fired. The law would become effective on January 1, 2014, and companies with more than 15 employees would be required to comply with the law starting in 2015.
Even if Mayor Bloomberg vetoes the bill, the council will likely override it, making the law effective anyway. This will impact the employers of more than one million employees who currently have no paid sick days provided for them. The costs to be borne by those employers weren't provided in any public announcements.
The AFL/CIO explained why such legislation was needed:
In addition to the potential loss of wages for working families, the lack of paid sick days forces many people to go to work when they are contagious and [make] co-workers and customers sick.
No paid sick time also decreases [the] productivity for workers who show up unable to perform to their normal level of ability.
The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) was joyous over the vote, calling it “a historic agreement to give over one million New Yorkers the right to take paid days off from work to care for themselves or a sick family member. The new legislation represents a major step forward for workers’ rights.” The CPD was joined by Make the Road New York; 32 BJ SEIU, the largest property service workers union; NYC City Council’s Progressive Caucus; the Working Families Party; A Better Balance; and the NY Paid Sick Leave Coalition.
Bill Lipton of the Working Families Party was equally ecstatic: "This is a sweet victory. It provides economic security for New Yorkers, and a shot in the arm for the paid sick days movement across the country."
The bill was first introduced by council member Gale Brewer, a permanent politician and long-time progressive political activist, back in July 2009 but went nowhere for nearly four years, owing to resistance by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Quinn’s change to allow a vote coincided nicely with her announcement in March to run to succeed Mayor Bloomberg.
Brewer exulted in the victory:
After 4 years of non-stop advocacy and coalition building, I want to thank the Paid Sick Days Coalition members and my Council colleagues with all my heart for support [of my bill] and never giving up.
I also extend my thanks to Speaker Quinn and her staff for their contributions to this legislation….
The argument over [paid sick leave] was always about common sense and fairness. I believe this law enshrines the principle that American exceptionalism is not just about large profits and small elites, but a workplace that is safe, fair and respectful of the lives of workers.
Approximately one million New Yorkers will now have the fundamental right to a paid day off when they or a family member falls ill, and no worker will be fired if they must stay home. This is a tremendous accomplishment of which all fair-minded New Yorkers can be proud.
Four major cities have already passed paid sick leave laws — Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. — while similar measures are being considered in 20 others. On the national level, two other progressives, Sen. Tom Harken (D-Iowa) and Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.), are pushing the Healthy Families Act, which proposes essentially the same thing as Brewer’s bill: seven paid sick days each year required to be paid for by employers with more than 15 employees. The National Partnership for Women & Families outlined the benefits of such national legislation:
• Paid sick days provide families with economic security;
• Providing paid sick days is cost effective to employers;
• Paid sick days reduce community contagion;
• Paid sick days can decrease health care costs.
Each of these assumptions can be rebutted successfully, but none does it better than Ayn Rand, who always asked “At whose expense?” and Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson, which also asked about the unseen consequences of such meddling. The "broken window fallacy" is also helpful in understanding what progressives refuse to see: Someone must pay for such mandates, usually someone silent or impotent, without enough political influence to stop such “progress” — usually the taxpayers or employers unlucky enough to have a successful business large enough to be included in the mandate.
Some of the unseen consequences would naturally include higher employment costs to the business owners, as these are, in effect, pay raises to employees. The business owners' higher costs would be reflected in higher prices to consumers, which would likely reduce competitive advantage in a market niche. More likely, however, owners will discover that they can’t afford all the people working for them and will be forced to reduce their payrolls through terminations or attrition. That will increase social costs, as those no longer working will start receiving unemployment benefits provided by the state.
In the longer run, however, making employers less competitive will shrink rather than expand the general economy. Some will not hire new workers. Others may decide to retire, deciding that it’s no longer worth the effort, as government becomes more and more intrusive. Still others may choose to move out of the city, or the state, to more tax-friendly environments, further reducing the city’s economic output.
The biggest cost of all, however, is the continued and growing acceptance of government intervention as a way to solve perceived social “problems” and giving progressives more opportunities to expand the power and reach of government
Perhaps the best rebuttal is to review the bill of rights of another country, well-known to historians, which also had a progressive agenda very similar to that of Quinn, Brewer, and the AFL/CIO. It stated:
Citizens … have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality….
Citizens … have the right to rest and leisure … the reduction of the working day to seven hours … [and] the institution of annual vacations with full pay….
Citizens … have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work … ensured by the extensive development of social insurance for workers and employees. [Emphasis added.]
These are, of course, the rights enshrined in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR.
A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.
Source
11 hours ago
11 hours ago