Friday, July 25, 2008

The Tennessee Jobs Coalition’s Fight to Protect Corporate Welfare

Posted by Pete Kotz on Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:09 PM

click to enlarge Don_20Haskell.jpg
In yesterday’s Tennessean, lawyer Don Haskell lamented yet another hike in the federal minimum wage, which rose on Thursday from $5.85 to $6.55. Anytime the minimum rises, business groups trot out guys like Haskell, who provide dubious logic and half-baked studies to argue that it will impede employment, push inflation, and steal the virginity of market forces. Of course, the new minimum rarely induces meaningful economic change. But that doesn’t stop low-wage employers from trying to ring a five-alarm bell. Haskell, a lawyer with Gullett, Sanford, Robinson & Martin, is wise enough to come off a bit more subdued. He’s writing on behalf of the Tennessee Jobs Coalition, a business group with a curiously deceptive name. It’s a consortium of merchants best known for wearing chastity belts on their wallets—retailers, restaurateurs, hoteliers and Chamber types. They’re not exactly regarded for sharing the spoils of profitability with their serfs. Haskell asserts that in “the current labor market, paying minimum wage is not even an option for most employers. It is, in effect, a bidding war among employers for available workers.” True: Many employers can’t get away with paying minimum wage, but only because so few people can afford to work for unlivable money. And since Tennessee’s unemployment rate is now at 6.5 percent – and on the marching – it would seem wise to ensure that low-wage employers can’t screw their charges too much. Then Haskell pulls out the old free market argument, which is to business people what the Old Testament is to fundamentalists. “Free-market proponents believe setting a minimum wage encourages some to stay near it. Removing it would unlock market forces at the lower end of the pay scale. The market will recognize and pay for performance and higher skills.” Frankly, we’re not sure what the hell he’s talking about. But he seems to be saying that, “If workers suck, we should be able to pay them $3 an hour.” Conveniently lost in his tale is that most low-wage industries don’t operate in the same zip code as a free market economy. They are, in fact, some of America’s biggest welfare queens. When you pay somebody, say, $8 an hour with no benefits, they don’t just merrily suffer in poverty. The government—and by extension, you—simply picks up what they can’t. Ask any emergency room worker about the legions of employed who arrive to be treated for ear infections, because they can’t afford to have their own doctors. Ask any social service worker about how many single working moms walk through the door, seeking food stamps and subsidized housing. Their employers, quite simply, are just shifting the costs of their labor onto the state. For a concrete example, we turn to America’s largest employer, Wal-Mart, with over 1 million workers nationwide. When Georgia examined its state-funded health care rolls, it found over 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees. California estimates the welfare costs for Wal-Mart workers at $89 million annually. And one congressional study says the feds’ welfare cost per store is $420,000 a year. Totaled out, Wal-Mart is estimated to gobble up $1.5 billion in welfare a year. This isn’t about a free market. It’s about cheapskates basing their profitability on someone else's picking up the tab.

Comments (6)

Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

"When you pay somebody, say, $8 an hour with no benefits, they don’t just merrily suffer in poverty. The government – and by extension, you – simply picks up what they can’t. Ask any emergency room worker about the legions of employed who arrive to be treated for ear infections, because they can’t afford to have their own doctors. Ask any social service worker about how many single working moms walk through the door, seeking food stamps and subsidized housing.
Their employers, quite simply, are just shifting the costs of their labor onto the state."
Nonsense.
It is the government that is shifting costs onto taxpayers by enacting those welfare programs in the first place. The employers didn't make the legislators create them. Ditto for government mandates on providing emergency room care for people whether they can pay or not.
The presumption that those things are "rights" that everyone is "entitled" to has no basis in the Constitution just as there is no ennumerated power contained in that document that ever authorized the government to create such things as the food stamp program to begin with.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
- James Madison

report   
Posted by Gilbert Martin on 07/26/2008 at 9:27 AM

True, Gilbert. Corporations and business trade associations are too busy advocating for their own welfare and protectionist perks to worry about others. (See VW, Nissan, pro sports stadium deals, off-shore tax shelters, tort reform, etc.)
But even most conservatives understand that if government doesn't provide the basic essentials of life -- food, shelter, medicine -- the people will decide to take them anyway, usually by gun. (See Latin America, African, parts of Asia.) If your daughter's sick and you can't afford medicine, you really think you're going to be placated by the words of James Madison?
Naah. You're gonna get yourself a gun and go get that medicine by any means necessary. Tis the nature of the species.

report   
Posted by Kotz on 07/27/2008 at 2:43 PM

Spare me the creakly old liberal, "poverty is the root cause of crime" routine.
Just like every other liberal theory about anything, it's never been proven to be true.
In point of fact,the United States government DIDN'T provide any of those things for a significant portion of the nations history. Crime rates weren't any higher then than they are now.

report   
Posted by Gilbert Martin on 07/27/2008 at 6:03 PM

the United States government DIDN'T provide any of those things for a significant portion of the nations history.
Yeah, and the average American's life expectancy was 49. You cannot make the world a better place by looking backward.

report   
Posted by TobintheGnome on 07/28/2008 at 9:21 AM

What makes you think Gilbert is interested in making the world a better place?

report   
Posted by BoydBBiggs on 07/28/2008 at 9:31 AM

"What makes you think Gilbert is interested in making the world a better place?"
What makes you think you can prove that your concept of what a "better world" is is any better than mine?
The outcomes that would constitute a "better world" is a matter of opinion - not fact.
You have never accomplished anything in your life that proves you're any wiser than me in judging the value of outcomes.
It is an absolute physical impossibility that you ever could.

report   
Posted by Gilbert Martin on 07/29/2008 at 7:31 AM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

Top Topics in
Pith in the Wind

Politics (64)


Legislature (59)


Phillips (41)


Sports (16)


Media (14)


Law and Order (13)


Around Town (9)


Crazy Crap (7)


Breaking News (7)


Education (6)


All contents © 1995-2012 City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation