Why work, when millions can earn much more staying home, collecting $600 plus average $400 state unemployment check

Republican and Democrat politicians, plus the Media brain trust, are missing the catastrophe coming from the $600-a-week Covid-19 unemployment compensation supplemental benefit for all 50 states.

In the ivory tower of statistic worship and technocratic analysis, the supplement makes sense. When millions lose jobs, unemployment insurance only covers about $400 average per week. With overtime, stock bonuses and such, the average earnings before taxes in America is about $970 a week, so $400 + $600 = $1,000, totally replaces the median wage.

The tragedy of this false logic: it ignores that half of the full time employed make more than $970, and half make less, many far less, as low as minimum wage: $270 weekly, after taxes.

Two examples:

  • Median high school grad 25 and older (26 million workers) earns $710 weekly after payroll taxes, laid off and receives $400 unemployment compensation, plus $600 supplemental – a total $1,000. Earnings are $290 a week more by not working.
  • Minimum wage worker earning $270 weekly, laid off and receives $210 unemployment compensation, plus $600 supplemental – a total of $810, three times as much by not working.

For millions of workers it pays to not work. Not only do they make more money, there’s no miserable boss, crazy deadlines, childcare costs, driving or transit expense. Even if the government payments were the same, let alone three times as much, wouldn’t nearly everyone stay home?

Some libertarians disagree, claiming that employees love their jobs, miss their fellow workers, find meaning in life by spending 40 hours or more away from home and family. This is another proof that libertarians are rich folks, who make up jobs they like, and just want to get away from the clatter of servants washing dishes (or a nagging spouse). For the rest of us, their golf and three-hour lunches are not real work.

Unfortunately, this supplemental unemployment cash will last until the end of July.

And that means going to work is stupid and irresponsible if you are the average person. Stay home. Enjoy the summer. You might even vacation with that earlier additional $1,200 per person stimulus check that went to every adult, except those claimed as a dependent on someone else’s income tax return (including blind, crippled and senile).

For two more months the current 17 million unemployed, mostly in lower paying jobs, will make every effort not to return to work.

For many businesses no staff means no income, and they will close, go bankrupt.

Even when workers return, what will be their reaction when, for example, their weekly pay is $300, not $800?

However, you might ask, suppose your boss decides to reopen and offer you your job again?

You might hate your boss if this happens. An employer who makes someone accept $300 or $400 a week for working, instead of earning $700 or $800 by not working, is asking for serious labor troubles.

Most employers are smart. They won’t bring back the workers until after the end of July.

And so the shutdown must continue for many businesses, even though they might enter the green phase,

This will kill the economy as more business go bankrupt – a bonanza by the way for the hedge funds, banks and investors who snatch up distressed firms.

A recent interview with National Public Radio (NPR) illustrated the problem:

“The very people we hired have now asked us to be laid off,” according to shop owner Sky Marietta, “Not because they did not like their jobs or because they did not want to work, but because it would cost them literally hundreds of dollars per week to be employed.”

You also have to think [of] the benefit of not having to go to work, especially during a pandemic.

It’s not that we don’t wish that we could pay our employees at that level all the time. You’re always wanting to pay your staff the best you possibly can. But to be put in a position where you can’t compete with them being at home, unemployed, it’s really tricky. It’s a really difficult situation to be in.”

To make things worse, the Covid-19 stimulus act also includes a provision to lend businesses money that doesn’t have to be repaid if it is used to pay salaries to retain workers.

Jamie Black-Lewis

Jamie Black-Lewis, who owns Oasis Medspa & Salon and Amai Day Spa in Washington state, said she received two forgivable loans through the new federal Paycheck Protection Program, She thought it was great to help keep her 35 employees who had their pay halted when the spas closed.

No surprise, the loans and being kept on payroll made many of her employees angry. The reaction she got was a “firestorm of hatred about the situation,” Black-Lewis said.

These employees realized they could make more money from unemployment than employment.

It’s a windfall they see coming, In their mind, I took it away.

Of course, the unethical business owner can win big if they want to break the rules.

First, don’t offer jobs back to your past employees, who are now on unemployment benefits.

Then hire new workers, who are employed elsewhere at a lower wage, and report you are not cutting staff and deserve a forgivable federal loan.

In time for August 1, lay off the “replacement” workers and rehire the old staff.

That way, they get the extra money, you get the help, and taxpayers are on the hook for your scam.

And with the efficiency of our government whiz kids, no reviews will be made of cheating the program, even if there was any way or desire to recover our money.

Higher wages, more jobs not from Trump pro-business economy; instead credit goes to DOL for overtime exempt rule change

Business-beholden members of Congress are falsely boasting that their 2017 tax law has been responsible for less unemployment and slightly higher hourly wages.

They praise themselves and President Donald Trump for cutting corporate rates from 35% to 21%, eliminating most taxes on dividends and capital gains, doubling the exemption for inheritance tax, and dropping the tax for corporate foreign profits – laundered for years overseas – from 35% to 15%.

The most onerous claim is that because these tax cuts made rich people richer, the wealthy decided to hire more workers and give generous raises. It’s what they call: “trickle down economics.”

In practice none of this pollyana politics is true, logical or based upon any evidence, except the rantings of wealth-snobs who believe that even a little more – is too much – for the little people. Cake anyone?

The 2017 tax cuts for the upper class and their investments has led to record profits for Wall Street firms (some up 50% just this past year). Overall corporate wealth is burgeoning – indicated by our booming stock market. The more profits, the more valuable a business becomes, and the higher its stock price.

If the “trickle” had been used for workers, profits would have stabilized or dropped. Stock prices would have remained steady or slightly lower, as company valuations were not boosted with more tax cut induced dividends and reinvestment.

The real force behind more jobs, lower unemployment and higher wages is the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) decision to increase the minimum overtime threshold salary for low-level managers from $455 to $684 a week – a $189 raise equaling $4.73 more an hour. Old rule was $23,660 annually. Under the new law it’s $33,280, an added $9,620.

This 50% pay hike went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, and U.S. businesses have been adjusting for at least a year, changing employment levels to eliminate the new rules’ more expensive overtime remuneration, and raising wages and salaries to reflect this new pro-worker reality.

Trickle Theory Works Well for the “Smart” Folks!

Until this month you could claim someone was exempt from overtime if they exceeded $455 weekly ($11.38 an hour). As exempt employees, you might require them to work six days or seven days a week, 12 or more hours a day, and still only receive their $455. Someone working under them could be paid $10 an hour and earn more than them with just four hours overtime (40 x 10 + (1.5 x 4 x 10)).

The old rules even allowed you to pay a “manager” that $455, and require them to supervise hourly workers earning $20 an hour, $30, $50, the sky was the limit.

This law went into effect in 2004 when President George Bush and his GOP-controlled House and Senate changed the rules on how overtime exemption was calculated. That’s when the $455 limit was established and the dollar amount has not changed until now.

Consider that the $8,060 salary limit set in 1975 was the equivalent of $38,301 today — far above last year’s $23,660 threshold. Every year, more and more Americans have been working extra hours for free.

The new overtime rule is less than the President Barack Obama decision in 2014 to double the salary threshold to $47,000. In a subsequent legal dispute, a federal judge in Texas ruled the change invalid in 2017, claiming that the DOL “exceeded its authority.”

$15 Minimum Wage Affects Millions from Bottom Up!

Why the change from the DOL under the current Republican administration? Corporations are facing higher local minimum wages as the $15-an-hour movement spreads.

Anticipating a $15 level in most jurisdictions, the DOL cleverly sets the new overtime exemption minimum rate at $17 an hour. That requires the lowest wage worker to need six hours overtime to reach the same weekly pay as the manager.

How does this work in the real world?

Imagine that you have 20 hourly workers at $10 an hour, plus four working managers at $455 salary with each “boss” putting in ten hours a day, or 50 hours a week. Under the new rules the managers became employees, and are entitled to a group’s total of 40 hours overtime pay at 150% of the usual rate.  At this point it’s cheaper to hire an additional employee for 40 hours, instead of paying overtime’s (1.5 x 40) 60 hours additional wages.

On a national scale the result of adding employees, instead of paying overtime, is more jobs and a lower unemployment rate.

But some managers are obviously just that, and suppose they now earn $700 a week. Won’t they ask for and receive a raise by pointing out they are just earning only $16 a week more than the minimum pay of $684, when there used to be a gap of $245?

All Workers Should Be Fairly Valued!

Higher wages for managers means more money overall for middle class consumers.

If managers do see their wages jump 1.5 times their old rate, won’t the people working under them also demand an equivalent percentage? They may not get the whole amount, but they will most likely receive a substantial increase.

There are currently 120 million U.S. workers, and 50 million of them are overtime exempt employees.

But imagine if the 2017 minimum of $47,000 had not been shot down by U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant, who claimed the salary level was set too high. The judge ignored that the DOL spent two years working on the rule and reviewed nearly 300,000 public comments before adopting it.

That change would have more than doubled the salary minimum and immensely improved the lives of tens of millions of families.

The new law also allows some categories of workers not subject to either the minimum wage or overtime exempt rules:

Exemptions from Both Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay:

  1. Executive, administrative, and professional employees (including teachers and academic administrative personnel in elementary and secondary schools), outside sales employees, and employees in certain computer-related occupations (as defined in DOL regulations)
  2. Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments, employees of certain small newspapers, seamen employed on foreign vessels, employees engaged in fishing operations, and employees engaged in newspaper delivery
  3. Farm workers employed by anyone who used no more than 500 “man-days” of farm labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year
  4. Casual babysitters and persons employed as companions to the elderly or infirm

Exemptions from Overtime Pay Only:

  1. Certain commissioned employees of retail or service establishments; auto, truck, trailer, farm implement, boat, or aircraft sales-workers; or parts-clerks and mechanics servicing autos, trucks, or farm implements, who are employed by non-manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in selling these items to ultimate purchasers
  2. Employees of railroads and air carriers, taxi drivers, certain employees of motor carriers, seamen on American vessels, and local delivery employees paid on approved trip rate plans
  3. Announcers, news editors, and chief engineers of certain non-metropolitan broadcasting stations
  4. Domestic service workers living in the employer’s home
  5. Employees of motion picture theaters
  6. Farm workers

Partial Exemptions from Overtime Pay:

  1. Partial overtime pay exemptions apply to employees engaged in certain operations on agricultural commodities and to employees of certain bulk petroleum distributors
  2. Hospitals and residential care establishments may adopt, by agreement with their employees, a 14-day work period instead of the usual 7-day workweek if the employees are paid at least time and one-half their regular rates for hours worked over 8 in a day or 80 in a 14-day work period, whichever is the greater number of overtime hours
  3. Employees who lack a high school diploma, or who have not attained the educational level of the 8th grade, can be required to spend up to 10 hours in a workweek engaged in remedial reading or training in other basic skills without receiving time and one-half overtime pay for these hours. However, the employees must receive their normal wages for hours spent in such training and the training must not be job specific
  4. Public agency fire departments and police departments may establish a work period ranging from 7 to 28 days in which overtime need only be paid after a specified number of hours in each work period

Pains of poverty from slave pay are just ignored by politicians; Elite class uses phony arguments to fight $15 minimum wage

Australia has always fascinated me, and not just because some of my ancestors moved there to help build that nation, along with millions of other “despicables” from Great Britain.

That continent and America were the freedom destinations for the Irish and English poor, who became indentured workers, toiling without pay for seven or more years to pay for their sea passage.

About half the American population in the mid 18th century were white and indentured, and even their children – born during such service – were automatically indentured until age 21 or older. In addition to indentured workers, Australia was a prison colony, and for a minor crime you were incarcerated and used as slave labor, often for life.

Let’s compare their minimum wage with our $7.25.

That $19.49 buys you plenty, considering Australia’s single-payer universal health care, low-cost public colleges, and $30,000 salary basement before paying back student loans.

You will notice that the minimum wage is much lower for students and varies by age for everyone. Apprentices are paid less.

There are also minimum wage variations by industry and occupation.

This is an example: Australia Restaurant Pay Guide

Minimum wage can increase by $5 an hour in the example guide, and wages on weekends and holidays are much higher.

Where do we go from here?

The Raise the Wage Act has passed the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 15) and still sits in the Senate (S.1242), where it will most likely die. It sets a $15 minimum by 2024.

Before the Raise the Wage Act, there has been no increase since the Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed in 2007. That long-delayed change raised the rate to $7.25 by 2009 – ten years ago.

Pessimism about passage comes from looking at the corporate-beholden members of the Senate, whose campaign donors are the very ones affected negatively by a fair wage for Americans. It can also be argued that the House passed the bill to get votes, realizing it would never become law because of Senate inaction.

Keeping workers competing for jobs and underpaid, while forcing both spouses to labor just to pay necessities, is a mantra of our profit-minded establishment.

A cable tv business channel anchor, Charles Payne, recently commented:

If people on minimum wage want more money, they should just get a second job.

A real Payne

Even if they did, it would take more than two jobs to earn the $5 million annually that Payne is paid for sitting at a desk and prognosticating about the “little people” and their need to sacrifice to enrich their employers.

A moment of stark reality is in order.

When Payne attends work one day, he earns as much as a minimum wage janitor is paid in an entire year. That means it would require the janitor to work hard for 365 years to match Payne’s one-year haul.

Nobody who sits and talks for a couple hours is worth 365 times as much a guy who breaks his back all day, so the rest of us have clean floors and toilets.

Time to raise the minimum wage. Among other blessings, the folks “down under” might stop looking down at us in wonder.

Nickels, dimes and dreams – author urges that all workers be fairly valued for their time and effort

A Montana coal miner’s daughter recently found herself the honored guest of King Willem-Alexander at the Royal Palace in the Netherlands.

It was a case of the guest being better-known than the host, despite title and wealth.

Barbara Ehrenreich, Ph.D, who researched and wrote the best-selling Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, enjoyed her triumph on Nov. 27, when she was awarded a 150,000 Euro ($169,500) prize for “exceptional contribution to the humanities, the social sciences or the arts, in Europe and beyond.”

The Praemium Erasmianum Foundation in Amsterdam recognized her for “writing about the widening gap between rich and poor, about the working poor and the middle-class fear of losing its comfortable existence…when they were hardly on the political agenda.”

A member of the Institute for Policy Studies board of trustees, Ehrenreich also founded the IPS-affiliated Economic Hardship Reporting Project, which supports investigative journalism.

Although her doctorate was in cellular immunology from Rockefeller University, she never worked in the sciences, and concentrated on journalism, winning various honors, including the National Magazine Award in 1980.

Ehrenreich, 77, was born in Butte, Montana. Her father was a copper miner, and her family pro-union.

But regardless of your politics, her on-the-street and undercover reporting is unique in this age of pompous pundits. When she wanted to write about poverty, she lived it.

As she accepted the award, so ironically in Amsterdam’s opulent Dutch Golden Age palace (video above), Ehrenreich ripped into causes of today’s extreme inequality.

Excerpts of her acceptance remarks follow:

Wow. Amsterdam is completely disorienting to an American. I’ve been here for more than a week and haven’t heard a single gunshot. Even the dignitaries, like the king and queen, are warm, kind people. When I met the Dutch ambassador to the US last spring, in connection with this prize, he was so pleasant and jolly that I had to question his credentials.

And now this: For me, this is like a fairy tale come true. We’re in the royal palace! With the king and queen! And I’m here with everyone I love including all the people who have enabled me and inspired me for so many years! Thank you so much to all the Dutch people not only for the Erasmus Prize but for this unforgettable moment!

Well of course I’m saying all these nice things about The Netherlands in the hope that you will, when necessary, grant me refugee status. Me, my family and friends, that is.

One thing about this country that is strange, even exotic, to an American is that you seem to lack the steep class divisions that are so visible almost everywhere in my country. You may eventually get to the same divided condition as my country — this is the way most industrialized countries are trending — but at least for now, the Dutch welfare state remains strong enough to prevent that from happening.

In the US, by contrast, we have virtually no welfare state to protect the poor and downwardly mobile, and the results are visible even to tourists.

Take Manhattan, that once-beautiful island that, according to legend, the Dutch bought from the Indians for $24 — and that’s a real estate deal that even Trump would have to admire. Today, Manhattan land sells for $1000/sq. foot, so $24 would get you a few square inches.

One sad consequence of the current prices is that only the super-rich can afford to live in the upper story apartments where the sun still shines. Walk around on the sidewalks of Manhattan today and you will be in the perpetual shade of the sky-scrapers housing American — and Russian and Chinese — billionaires.

Actually, you’ll be in the shade of the empty apartments of the super-rich – because when you have 6 or 7 homes you can’t be in any one of them much of the time.

I have spent a lot of time in that shade. I was born into the relative poverty of a working class family in Montana and spent a good portion of my adult life struggling economically, partly because I chose to be a writer and a journalist. This seemed like a good fit for me because I’d been educated as a scientist and journalists have the same goal — finding the truth and getting people to pay attention to it.

At the beginning of my career, I could earn enough to support my family, at however minimal a level. But starting in the 90s that began to change. Newspapers and other news outlets were taken over by large corporations that were concerned only about the bottom line.

They cut their staffs, including journalists, and closed those magazines and newspapers that weren’t making enough money, at least by the standards of their new owners, with the result that, today, writers aren’t paid well when they’re paid at all.

To make things worse, I often chose to write about poverty — about all the people who are left out of America’s fabulous wealth, who try to get by on about $10/hr while raising children and paying exorbitant prices for rent and medical care. This seems so unfair to me, so easily fixable.

Why not, for example, open up the empty sky-high apartments of the super-rich as squats for the homeless while their super-rich owners are off in London or the Caribbean?

But this of course is not the kind of thing that the new super-rich owners of the media business want to hear. I found the demand for my kinds of stories diminishing. Editors urged me to write less about economic inequality and more about “feminine” topics like the first lady’s fashion choices and the secrets of success of female CEOs. I could no longer make a living in journalism, and had to find other ways to support myself.

What is worse, I could not be sure I was actually making a difference. I had started in the 80s doing the conventional type of journalism: interviewing people and getting their stories published. This was my way of debunking the common prejudice that the poor are only poor because they want to be – because they don’t make an effort, or because somewhere along the way they forgot to get an education for a high-paying career.

I got some praise for “giving a voice to the voiceless” but nothing changed. In fact, things were only getting worse: Wages started going down relative to the cost of living; the welfare state began to disappear; unions were becoming weaker.

So I decided to turn things up a notch, to try “immersion journalism,” in the style of the German journalist Gunter Wallraff who went undercover to report on the lives of Turkish guest workers (I had not heard of him at the time.)

I left home, found the cheapest housing I could, and took the best paying jobs I could find – as a waitress, a hotel housekeeper, a cleaning lady, a nursing home aide and a Walmart employee. I didn’t deliberately select these jobs: They selected me.

These are the only kinds of jobs I could get without using my actual credentials. (Not that my credentials would have helped, since I never did see a job advertisement for a political essayist, especially not a sarcastic feminist political essayist.)

To my utter surprise, the book that I wrote about my experiences became a bestseller, and helped reinforce the ongoing movement for higher wages. To my even greater surprise, many people praised me for my bravery for having done this – to which I could only say: Millions of people do this kind of work every day for their entire lives – haven’t you noticed them?

And I learned a very important lesson: I never use the word “unskilled” any more to refer to anyone’s work. I learned the hard way that every job takes skill, intelligence and concentration – and should be paid accordingly.

Now I’m in my third and final phase of my personal campaign for social justice. Six years ago, it struck me that people living in poverty (or near poverty) don’t need someone to “give them a voice.” They have voices and they know what they want to say. They just need some help, some support to allow them to write and help them get published.

So I created something called the Economic Hardship Reporting Project for exactly that purpose. In our six years of existence, we have raised money from philanthropists to help support over 100 people – factory workers, house cleaners, and many professional journalists who have fallen on hard times.

We’ve turned some lives around. We’ve called attention to issues no one was thinking about — like the plasma business, which pays poor people for their vital blood proteins, at considerable cost to their health. Or the growing number of childcare centers that operate 24 hours a day, because their parents have to work pretty much around the clock … about homeless Americans who live year-round in tents … and about the epidemic of suicides among American farmers.

We are very proud of what we do. Some of our people have won prizes and awards. All of them have had their work published in widely read media outlets. A few have gotten book contracts or actual paying jobs. We like to think that we’re making a difference.

And maybe we are. But it’s a tiny difference compared to what needs to happen. And I guess that’s the story of my life as a journalist: You try and try to bring attention to what is really happening and to all the unnecessary pain in the world. Most of the time you fail. You don’t change the world. You may not even get paid for your work.

But once in a while, very rarely, you are recognized and applauded for what you are trying to do. This is one of those moments — and not only for me. I am encouraged and emboldened to work even harder for a just and equitable society, as are my many friends and colleagues and loved ones. I thank you on behalf of all of them.

From left: Queen Máxima, Barbara Ehrenreich, King Willem-Alexander, and former Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands. Erasmus Prize ceremony, Nov. 27, 2018. Photo: Praemium Erasmianum Foundation

ICE use of private prisons is another example of our make-a-buck Congress and WH losing public trust

Why do we put up with nearly 750,000 pending immigration cases, where many detainees are forced into private jails for months, awaiting a ponderous bureaucracy to decide their fate?

Let’s follow the money…

An entire industry has grown up around detainees, from employment for lawyers and judges, to nonprofits raising money for jazzy executive salaries. And the longer the review process, the more money sloshes about, enriching groups and individuals at the expense of foreigners, who should be instead rapidly excluded from – or included in – our American society.

Nowhere is this abuse more blatant than the for-profit detention centers run by the same folks who own many of our criminal prisons and use inmates and government largess to grab the big dollars. Continue reading “ICE use of private prisons is another example of our make-a-buck Congress and WH losing public trust”

CNN, Paul Ryan, Cato, NY Times, Paul Krugman, Heritage – one establishment voice against tariffs

Rich or poor, religious or not, every leader of every Southern state in 1860 opposed tariffs and embraced slavery. In the North, where there was no slavery, everyone favored tariffs to protect both American industry and wage earners from unfair foreign competition.

Today, Paul Ryan, Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation invariably promote cutting Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, in fact they despise anything that helps the middle class. On the other side, CNN, Paul Krugman, WAPO and the New York Times say they oppose cuts to these necessary programs.

So, what’s happening here. Why are the leaders of the far left and far right joined together to fight against America seeking fair trade through fair tariffs? Continue reading “CNN, Paul Ryan, Cato, NY Times, Paul Krugman, Heritage – one establishment voice against tariffs”

Banker elite Alan Greenspan is 90 and fabulously wealthy. Why he wants to cut your Social Security.

 

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, current hubby of Andrea Mitchell (Hillary Clinton’s talking head at NBC), and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission, has a big problem

Populism!

Al isn’t mad at the “pop” in pop-out-of-the-cake by some former girlfriend, like Barbara Walters. He sees a dangerous “pop”, the worst kind  – the potential revolt of what he might call the “vast unwashed multitude of the deplorable and nonredeemable.”

Google identifies the threat to Al this way: Continue reading “Banker elite Alan Greenspan is 90 and fabulously wealthy. Why he wants to cut your Social Security.”

British want to fight inequality – it’s worse here!

British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbin is starting a campaign against inequality that should be emulated by all (five, ten?) American politicians not controlled by big business.

“One proposal is pay ratios between top and bottom, so that the rewards don’t just accrue to those at the top,” he said.

“Of the G7 nations only the US has greater income inequality than the UK, and pay inequality on this scale is neither necessary nor inevitable.”

Corbin is talking about real compensation – wages, salaries and bonuses – while many reports for the American public will note an executive $1 million wage, but exclude their $12 million bonus. That trick is good PR for the overpaid, but not good statistics when comparing worker to CEO. Also not mentioned is that company owners (with no work required) usually make much more than the executives. When comparing apples to apples, the mismatch is onerous.

“Total direct compensation for 300 CEOs at public companies increased 5.5% to a median of $11.4 million in 2013, concluded an analysis by The Wall Street Journal and Hay Group. A separate AFL-CIO study of CEO pay across a broad sample of S&P 500 firms showed the average CEO earned 331 times more than the typical U.S. worker last year. In 1980, that multiple was 42,” according to a report in the Wall Street Journal in November, 2014.

Gave you halfThe record of being the most unequal of G7 nations – Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and United States – is a distinction without merit. So-called pay inequality solutions here include lowering the taxes on the highest paid, sheltering savings of the richest Americans, and maintaining government subsidies to the poorest workers (EITC), rather than really raising (not $10.10) the minimum wage. And those negative plans are the ones endorsed by many in the Democrat Party. Most in the GOP also want to privatize everything from national parks to public roads and schools – in short, anywhere a buck can be squeezed.

“Another proposal would be to bar or restrict companies from distributing dividends until they pay all their workers the living wage,” Corbin explained.

“Only profitable employers will be paying dividends, if they depend on cheap labor for those profits, then I think there is a question over whether that is a business model to which we should be turning a blind eye.”

During the 2008 financial crisis, it was common that many, running for public office, also espoused caps on highest salaries to five or ten million dollars. Continue reading “British want to fight inequality – it’s worse here!”