- ‹ previous
- 2603 of 2715
- next ›
Wage Insurance
WAGE INSURANCE....Here's an interesting passage from John McCain's speech tonight:
Government assistance for the unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That's going to change on my watch....For workers in industries that have been hard-hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one, while they receive re-training that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.
McCain is talking here about "wage insurance," a proposal that's been bubbling around in neoliberal circles for over a decade and has considerable (though not unanimous) support among Democrats. McCain, I think, has mentioned wage insurance in passing a few times before, but as far as I know he's never really committed himself to it. And unless it's buried somewhere that I missed, it's not part of the economic plan on his website.
But tonight, in a speech with very few specific policy details, he committed himself firmly to supporting a wage insurance plan if he becomes president. Why? Was it just because he didn't really have much else in the way of economic proposals that he thought might appeal to ordinary families? Was it a throwaway line? Or is he serious about it?
McCain was probably offering to allow the unemployed a tax credit against their capital gains tax when they sell one of their 7 houses to pay for their own retraining.
I missed the first part. Was the whole thing Democrat Lite or what?
The seven houses of McCain finally cleared up, one house for each of the seven kids to inherit. Sounds reasonable.
Is this another name for workfare? I.e., if you're going to get unemployment benefits you'll have to be willing to work at some really shitty job, regardless of what you did before? Maybe he thinks this is how we solve the immigration issue?
I caught that, but I'd like to hear him talk more about it. If he has more to offer about reforming the unemployment system, I'd like to hear more about that, too. I'm always open to talking about this stuff.
Of course, this makes me wonder why nobody mentioned this over the last few days.
Yes that was curious. I hadn't heard a proposal like that before.
It strikes me though this is a consistent conservative stance.
I heard Glen Hubbard (I think) give his opinion on a "market oriented" solution to the health insurance crisis on NPR.
He wants the government to subsidize (his word) the private insurance for people with chronic health problems.
In other words he wants the government to pay the insurance companies to cover the people who are sick.
Rather than of course just taking care of them.
So how does that relate to McCain?
Well in this context, he wants to essentially "pay" Walmart to hire (ok I'll be fair, ensure a steady workforce of ) people who get thrown out of work.
Who, by the way will not get health benefits and somehow will end up getting one of those "market oriented" solutions.
Now, these are conservatives who pride themselves in understanding that the shortest distance is a straight line.
Why then do they pretzelitize themselves to come up with solutions that when you just state them in English show such obvious contortions and inefficiencies?
Sorry Kevin, you misheard. He was talking about "Rage Assurance" where he has guaranteed that he will go off the deep end and totally lose it whenever he's presented with any crisis, minor to major, domestic to foreign.
I've spent the last 15 minutes googling this and I believe you are correct.
He's said a lot of the same rhetoric about the UI system being outdated and Holt-Eakin has used that language in op eds but they have never explicitly mentioned making up for lost wages before.
I've posted favorably on wage insurance myself over at Economists for Obama back before the Ohio primary.
Obviously, this would make little difference in my support of Obama --I think his position on retraining of displaced workers is pretty good.
It could reflect the fact that politically McCain needs to be able to say something about helping the unemployed when the debates roll around and the convention speech might be a good way to sneak it in so that it doesn't seem like a really blatant pander.
As far as I can tell, that was the only new proposal in his speech--that, and his new committment to community colleges to assist in job retraining.
I certainly agree with that, but since as far as I know it's the first time he's mentioned it, I'd like to know a bit more about some specifics.
Good proposal in theory, but note that it says "in industries that have been hard-hit." I'll bet you his conservative base gets to define the industries that are hard hit. And they would be "the banking industry", "the private military contracting industry", "oil drilling industry", "investment banking industry" and other conservative favorites.
I've posted a few more thoughts on this over at Economists for Obama
"As far as I can tell, that was the only new proposal in his speech--that, and his new committment to community colleges to assist in job retraining."
Interestingly enough, part of Barack Obama's time as a community organizer involved helping people into those programs. Yet this sort of work was widely derided at the convention.
I doubt he's serious. It sounds good, for a Republican, but practically? Not going to happen. Besides, it isn't like we haven't tried retraining programs before; there are a bunch of unemployed steel workers and others who got retrained to do computer jobs that are now being done in India. The economy changes faster than people can get retrained. And what is McCain's proposal for creating the "decent wage" (and presumably non-union) jobs that these folks would move into after their "temporary" lower paid one?
There isn't one.
If McCain wasn't attacking Obama by name, one would think McCain is running as a Democratic Party candidate. I think the conservatives sensed this and insisted on Palin so they can remind themselves that McCain is their chosen one.
I think the idea is that something like this gives corporations moral cover to transfer jobs overseas at will, never mind the social upheaval and cost.
I was watching the speech with Marian, and that was her reaction too: McCain sounded like he was trying to run as a Democrat. I have to confess that I didn't really hear it that way, but I'm biased. Still, I suppose there's something to that. If you play down the culture war stuff and stay light on the details, a lot of what McCain talked about sounded an awful lot like the same stuff Obama talked about last week.
Ah yes, All you who had jobs in the manufacturing industries will be "re-educated" in community colleges to become members of the working class again - with an "unemployed" tax credit against any capital gains you may be subject to.
Jesus Wept!
This proposal is actually quite similar to the social welfare arrangement that prevailed in England from 1795 to 1834.
Wikipedia
Most of what I know about the system, how well it worked (badly) and why it was replaced (with something worse) is from Karl Polanyi's *The Great Transformation* (1943); he has a whole chapter on the subject.
McCain says:we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one, while they receive re-training that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wagewhich is great, since there won't be any bureaucracy or complex formulas involved. Because as free-traders everywhere agree, it's extremely easy to measure the impact on job status (employment, wages, benefits) that comes from things like NAFTA. It's much better than being protectionist, which has the unhappy result of making labor more valuable as a resource, empowering unions, and all the trouble for workers that result (better pay, pensions).
Bravo, John McCain - and all the economic neo-libs out there! (Hi, Brad DeLong!)
So let me get this straight, you lose your job, then you have to first spend your time looking, and competing for, and then working at, a lower paying job (for which you may have no skills), and then conduct your real job search on the side?
Sounds like a real good way of conditioning people to their new status in life.
I wrote about this at Economists for Obama.
(For some reason my previous comments with the links are being held and not getting posted.)
In theory, I think consolidating old age, disability, and unemployment payments into one unified social insurance program ("down on your luck" payments) or ("unable to participate in the workforce" payments) is a good idea. The main problems are the free rider problems and deciding how much we can afford to pay to people outside the workforce -a choice that will get tougher if the economy goes into permanent contraction due to peak oil and other environmental issues.
I'm not sure if the Republicans have the credibility to address something like this.
The line Kevin quotes was the most interesting line in the speech. Like a lot of the lines, though, it consisted of McCain saying he was going to do something about a particular issue without giving any confidence that he was going to do something significant. Be weary when a politician says they want to 'reform' something, since tax reform, social security reform, health care reform, energy reform, and education reform have been promised by pretty much every politician ever elected, and nothing ever changes.
McCain's speech is being compared to Democratic speeches because it consisted of a laundry list of issues without believable solutions. It is the worst Democratic tradition, reminiscent of Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.
The last part of McCain's speech was much better--he obviously enjoys going POW more than addressing issues. Unfortunately for him and us, it took him a long time to get to that point.
I'm not convinced McCain nows what wage insurance really is.
I think a similar benefit was passed with Nafta, and that a surprisingly small number of workers claimed benefits because they were harmed by trade with Mexico.
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH THIS creepy promotional video for a workshop at Wasilla Assembly of God (Sarah Palin's longtime church)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJnhRhJW35o
When you watch this video REMEMBER...this was Sarah Palin's church for nearly her entire life.
The man with in the leather jacket donning a goatee was Sarah Palin's pastor from 1999 till 2002.
She continues to have close ties to this church and is involved with workshops there.
Palin endorses Obama's plan to tax oil giants.
I haven't seen this story mentioned elsewhere. "Palin And Obama Have Pushed Similar Plans To Raise Oil Taxes" by Richard Rubin at cqpolitics.com.
Here is the link.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=145&docID=news-000002943975
Maybe someone can put together a diary and make the link work. This story should be getting more attention.
McCain is phony as a three dollar bill. He is 100% behind La Raza (The Race) and one of the most corrupt senators in Washington on trafficking in cheap labor from Latin countries to take American jobs. His chief Hispanic adviser, Juan Hernandez, is about as rabid on the subject of giving our country away to Mexicans as you can get. McCain is also a free trade ideologue, which is great for his multinational corporate cronies, but murder for American workers.
It is ironic that McCain wants to keep Sarah Palin away from the Press, but Sarah Palin is a Celebrity now and just like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears will be pursued by the Press and paparazzi! As you can see, Sentaor McCain, what goes around, Comes Around --God's Hand of Judgment is Swift!
And, You know, Jesus was a Community Organizer and Pilate was a Governor (Hah!) so was George Bush, so much for Executive Experience...
Yes, Barack worked as a community organizer but he also worked as a civil rights lawyer, taught constitutional law, 8 years as a Legislature in the state legislature, and 4 years in the US Senate where he is currently a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with Joe Biden (an almost carbon copy resume to the great, Abraham Lincoln, America's Greatest President)! He is more than qualified to lead and bring true and positive change to this nation.
"Breaking News.....
We will have breaking news regarding an ongoing story around 10am Alaska time on Friday......"
AndrewHalcro.com, Alaskan Blogger
It is so Americans agree to work for lower wages in cooperate environments. Get it?
The free-rider problem is a real problem that is dishonestly exploited at every turn by reactionaries who use it to cut off needed benefits that help smooth economic circumstances. Social benefits help the economy. They smooth adjustments. They make people more willing to take risks in changing jobs or working for interesting new employers. Stopping those because a few people might get undeserved benefits would be like abolishing limited liability for enterprises because Enron hid its crimes behind it.
like abolishing limited liability for enterprises...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
The basic concept already exists - it's Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. TAA includes extended benefits and retraining programs.
Perhaps the last true thing McCain said on the campaign trail was that high wage assembly line jobs in historically important industries such as auto manufacture are not coming back any time soon. To me, this is an attempt to curry some favor with Michigan, Ohio and western Pennsylvania blue collar voters and make up for a rare instance of truthtelling.
I read something about a similar program that paid businesses to put welfare recipients to work. It would pay a fee up front for the business to hire them--which covered the cost of training them if they did not stay for long, so that makes sense. What happened, IIRC, was something called "churning" where the businesses took advantage by pushing people out early and getting new people to collect more of these up-front fees. This kind of thing would have to be ironed out, but it's hard to see how this idea would work very well and maybe that's why we don't use it.
TAA is very limited and has been pretty much of a failure.
A more broadly designed wage insurance plan could be much more like UI for people who still find work but low paid jobs. As I note at economists for Obama the key is whether they try to gut UI instead of supplement it.
Would he be so kind to offer insurance insurance too.
I lose my job, I go to work at 7-11.
My pay has dropped by $12 an hour. But I also lost my health insurance. Is that part of the deal or not?
Won't need to raise taxes to fund this new entitlement program, no.
And wage insurance is so much more needed that health insurance, which isn't available to a lot of people who are already, you know, employed.
I also could not believe this "issue."