more subsidies to crybaby laid-off workers
This is posted in response to current (6-02) proposed legislation
to compensate laid-off workers who are thought to be victims of
cheap foreign imports, or of foreign competition due to increased
global trade.
The uncompetitive who suffer from increased global trade
will always whine that they are victims of some kind of injustice,
and they will come back again and again with their crybaby
remedies, demanding that they be subsidized in one form or
another.
The main point to keep in mind is this: No matter who the
"victims" are, no matter when or where, any program which tries
to compensate them and give them any special treatment can only
make most of us worse off and do damage to the economy.
The policy
of the government should be to do what is right for the country
as a whole, for the greatest number of citizens, for the
long-term good of all of us. It should not be to pander to a
select group of crybabies to give them a short-term benefit at
the expense of the rest of us.
Giving any special benefit to laid-off workers has exactly
the wrong effect: it rewards irresponsibility and erases any reward
to those who behave responsibly and do the right thing.
Laid-off workers are people who did not do what they should
have done. What they should have done was to get out of that
uncompetitive dead-end job and find a place in the economy where
we really need them. If they are responsible, they will plan
ahead. They will take note of the trends in their line of work,
and if the demand for them is decreasing, they will adjust -- they
will retrain, they will do whatever they have to do to make
themselves competitive again.
Responsible persons will not simply stay in that uncompetitive
job and wait for the inevitable layoff and then complain that
they got a raw deal. No, if they do that they are irresponsible
and it is their fault whatever happens.
Unskilled workers in auto factories, steel mills, textile mills,
and other places where the demand is decreasing have an obligation
to change, to be aware of what is happening in those industries
and of the decreasing demand for them in that job, and they have
an obligation to do what is necessary to prepare and to get out
of that uncompetitive situation as soon as possible.
And they have an obligation to tell their children NOT to
aspire to that same job, to tell them the truth -- that
this job is no longer competitive, that such workers are less
valuable than they used to be and are becoming expendable, and it
no longer makes sense to be a "proud" steelworker or autoworker,
etc. Such workers are no longer the "backbone" of the country,
but rather are becoming parasites and less and less useful and
more of a burden on the economy. TELL THEM THE TRUTH!
Stop telling the lie that somehow you are a productive member
of society simply because you show up at 8 a.m. everyday and burn
some calories at the factory. Showing up and burning calories is
not what makes a worker productive. Swinging a hammer, pulling a
lever, operating a power tool, throwing metal around, slamming
and banging and making a racket and getting your clothes dirty --
this is not what constitutes productivity.
What is true productivity? True productivity is
SATISFYING CONSUMER DEMAND
and if consumers can be satisfied better by cheap foreign labor,
then guess what: You are expendable and unnecessary and worthless,
despite all those levers and power tools and buttons
and all that metal banging and slamming
or whatever it is you do in that factory. None of that makes you
valuable if someone else can put out the same final product
better or cheaper.
And what happens when the government enacts special subsidies
to laid-off workers? Does this encourage uncompetitive workers to
change and make themselves truly valuable and productive instead
of only going through the pretense of being productive? Does it
encourage them to
become responsible and do the right thing? Hardly. It does the
opposite. It gives them reassurance that there's no problem with
remaining in that uncompetitive job -- don't worry about it, the
government will take care of you if you get laid off.
It discourages those workers who have the foresight to plan
ahead and take responsibility to change before the layoffs come,
while it gives special benefits to those uncompetitive workers who
procrastinate and wait until the layoffs take place.
The benefits to these workers in the current legislation include
the following: A subsidy to their new wage, if they switch to a
new job which pays less; continuance of their former health-care
insurance at taxpayers' expense; and special job training programs
not available to anyone except laid-off workers who can prove
they were hurt by foreign competition.
An income-maintenance program such as this not only rewards
people for doing the wrong thing, it fosters the pernicious
notion that people are entitled
to have their income sustained even though their value has
gone down. In other words, it promotes a sort of caste system, or
system of tenure, rewarding people who reached a certain income
level, maintaining
them at that level, even though they are no longer earning that
income.
Why should there be such an entitlement in society? Why
shouldn't people be required to keep on earning that income as
a condition to continue receiving it?
These benefits are not available to workers who take
responsibility to change and quit the job before the layoffs.
These workers could not prove they were hurt by foreign
competition, because they quit voluntarily, before the layoffs.
They might have to settle for a lower wage than before, and they
might also lose their health insurance, or settle for a policy
which is less attractive. They might also need to retrain for
their new job.
They must bear all this sacrifice at their own
expense. They're not entitled to the same tenure and income
maintenance which their
irresponsible co-workers gained by doing the wrong thing
These workers, the responsible ones, who did the right thing,
who took the initiative to improve themselves, who got off their
butt instead of whining and who became better humans, better
citizens, these ones of superior character -- they effectively
get punished because they did what was right. While the crybabies
who stayed in that uncompetitive job and only whined instead
of doing anything to improve themselves -- they get rewarded with
subsidies.
And who pays for the reward to the laid-off crybabies who were
irresponsible? The taxpayers, all the rest of us, including those
who were responsible and did improve themselves and changed
careers when they should have. Many of them are worse off than the
laid-off crybabies who get the subsidies. The subsidized ones get
their $15/hour or $20/hour wages plus expensive health care
insurance at the expense of the rest of us, many of whom are
struggling to survive on much less and cannot afford health insurance.
Rewarding irresponsible uncompetitive parasites and punishing those
who are responsible and earning their own way and struggling to
survive -- that's what the Trade Adjustment Act is all about.
So it is the irresponsible ones, the ones of lower inferior
character, who get rewarded by the "trade adjustment" provisions.
We won't create a better economy or better country by
rewarding people for being parasitic and
irresponsible. Those who do the wrong thing should not get
any benefit that isn't available to everyone else.
The way to deal with those who are uncompetitive is not to pity
them and shower them with charity benefits, but to tell
them the harsh reality: that it is their fault and they must
take responsibility to change and make themselves more
competitive; no one owes them anything -- not the taxpayers, not
corporations, not consumers -- no one is obligated to babysit
them and bail them out.
They should get no special programs that aren't available to everyone
else. If a job training (or retraining) program should be made available
to those who want to improve themselves, it should be for everyone,
not offered exclusively to those who were laid off because of cheap
foreign imports, as though they are special victims. They were not
victimized -- they made their choices. It's time for them to grow up and
take responsibility for those choices and stop the whining.
If you disagree with any of the above, click here
and your comment can be posted here, or post an argument in one of
the message boards in the left column and notify this website
so we can debate it in that message board.