Small "Pox"...

I am registering a complaint on a just-in-case basis, as I don't have enough information to make a fair and accurate judgment here. It's a throw-back to my recent post where I borrowed Shakespeare's quote of, "a pox on both your houses", which his character directed at both the families of Romeo, and Juliet, for their endless and unreasonable feud that had torn their entire community apart for years. Similarly, we have the endless feuding in politics between Republicans, and Democrats who both claim to love our country, yet in practice seem to have so high a regard for their separate political philosophies ( Democrats with their lock-step Socialism, and Republicans with their nearly worshipful Capitalism) that any truly Patriotic fervor tends to get lost in the squabble. Since in my opinion Socialism holds very little of value for the future of our nation, and Capitalism misses the mark badly, I wrote that I have to throw up my hands in disgust, and frustration and pronounce a figurative, "pox on both their houses".

My concern today is again over the possibility of extending unemployment benefits further, on first the federal level, and secondarily on a State-by-State basis. I honestly believe that both sides in the debate have good points, but are equally blind when it comes to balancing the legitimate concerns of the American people, with their own political beliefs which are less than relevant in today's critical economic environment. They both recognize that our present anemic "recovery" from what is statistically considered to be the worst Recession of the past century is so fragile that the unemployment benefits were needed to be extended as long as they have been, since the job market had essentially dried up for the duration. This plays right into the Socialistic values of the Democrats, who just love the concept of having more and more people on the government dole so they can tax the employed people of the country at higher and higher rates, giving the government more and more exclusive control over how to re-distribute this legal largess, and to whom it will go. They can then give undeserved money to those special interests who in turn give money to their own re-election campaigns, thus greatly ensuring their own continued employment. These legal "kickbacks" might well be called a form of "indirect cronyism", as it amounts to nothing better than paying graft to those who best help them get re-elected.

In contrast, we have very little difference from the Republican side of the spectrum. They seem deeply concerned with the hopeless plight of those who lose their jobs and are unable to replace them with other jobs, until the economy begins to recover and businesses start advertising to fill jobs again. But the shallowness of their concern becomes starkly evident when they start lobbying to cut off the unemployment benefits when potential workers are slow to respond to the job offers, claiming that the government benefits are a disincentive to seeking new jobs, with the implication that our workforce is lazy, and they would rather stay on the dole, than try to better their plight with a new job. This is so ridiculous it is infantile, and insulting, and it is the myopic view of those who feel secure in their well-paying jobs that makes them look down on the unfortunate workers who have no choice but to hold out until they can find a job that pays enough to better their situation, that will feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their families, and that seems secure enough to last even if there is another economic down-turn. This is known as behaving in their own self-interest, which is the human behavioral characteristic upon which true, Free Market Capitalism is supposed to be based. The fact that Republicans disparage this very fundamental response to todays economic situation shows that they are not as dedicated to these principles as they claim, but are merely marching lock-step to the greedy whims of their political cronies, Wall Street's Big Business interests.

In the early stages of a slow recovery from a long Recession, you can bet that the vast majority of new jobs coming onto the market are very low paying jobs, or high paying jobs that require so much specialized education, and experience that there are few qualified applicants available who are not already so employed. The low paying jobs are not attractive to workers even if they pay more than their unemployment benefits, if they pay considerably less that their last salary, which the government used to decide their 50% unemployment benefit value. If they take the new low-paying job, with the risk that they might be fired if another down-turn develops, any future unemployment benefits will be based upon their new last salary, with a lower benefit to try and survive upon. This is the fault of Congressional lawmakers determining this rule, and not the overall laziness of the workforce. When businesses become desperate enough for workers that they will act in their own self-interests and offer more livable wages, they will find that those "lazy workers" will fall all over themselves to compete for those jobs. Granted there will always be some workers who are lazy enough to prefer not working, at 50% pay, but for Republicans to presume that this is the motivation of all the unemployed is so patronizingly insensitive that it is nauseating. Hence, my pronouncing, "a pox on both your houses"!!!

Now we have reports that the Governor of North Carolina has decided that his state will simply not renew unemployment benefits at all. Fox News reported this with an almost fawning interview in which they stated that the result was a drop in overall unemployment of a few percentage points, making theirs one of the lowest, statistically, in the country. Their report clearly left their viewers to draw the logical conclusion that all we need to do is cut off the benefits and everyone will
grab a job that's just waiting for them, and the country will magically be fully employed, forever! But there were some points that were not discussed that are necessary before we can reach anywhere near that conclusion.

First, how many unemployed merely jumped ship and moved in with relatives, or moved to another state to become someone else's problem. Since they no longer register on North Carolina's statistical radar, that makes everything seem okay, I suppose. Others will simply lose their homes, pack the family into the car, and try to live on a vacant lot, while eating at soup kitchens in order to survive. Others with disabilities that preclude working will simply have to change one form of government subsidy for another. And, finally, some will simply be overwhelmed at trying to find work that is just not available where they live, and will struggle to find shelter, and fight off the threat of starvation until the economy really turns around. It's a known fact that many homeless people will commit petty crimes when the weather turns cold in order to spend the winter months locked up in "warm jail cells" with free meals. They may have otherwise reformed from any former illegal behavior, but since any prior record essentially makes them unemployable, a six-month jail term seems better than freezing to death, or starving. So much for rehabilitation! So, mister Governor, why don't you collect some statistics on the above issues, before you try to convince me that the solution to the unemployment problem is to simply cut the benefits to force the lazy unemployed into getting a job.

I strongly suspect that big business is largely responsible for pushing this position through the media. They've had it pretty good for years with cheap employment in China, and other countries that pay their employees at slave-labor levels. Now they want to shame our workforce into accepting jobs that won't pay a livable wage, through media advertising campaigns. Sorry folks, that won't wash in a country that allows people to choose their employment according to their own self interests.

I'm sure that the Fox News analysts that I hear the most vociferously making this claim are merely responding to the urging of their parent company, News Corp., which now owns the Wall Street Journal, which has a vested interest in encouraging workers to apply for cheap-labor employment, in order to prop up the corporations who want the recovery to pick up steam. But to claim that the workforce is obstinately lazy is unconscionable in the extreme, in my opinion.