A Better Deal for American Workers - By Chuck Schumer

[DonViejo]

By CHUCK SCHUMER JULY 24, 2017

Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy. They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year’s election. American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests. Today, Democrats will start presenting that better deal to the American people.

There used to be a basic bargain in this country that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could own a home, afford a car, put your kids through college and take a modest vacation every year while putting enough away for a comfortable retirement. In the second half of the 20th century, millions of Americans achieved this solid middle-class lifestyle. I should know — I grew up in that America. But things have changed.

Today’s working Americans and the young are justified in having greater doubts about the future than any generation since the Depression. Americans believe they’re getting a raw deal from both the economic and political systems in our country. And they are right. The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers.

And for far too long, government has gone along, tilting the economic playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful while putting new burdens on the backs of hard-working Americans.

Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people — and that we stand for three simple things.

more
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/chuck-schumer-employment-democrats.html?emc=edit_th_20170724&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57435284&_r=0

[Bluepinky]

1. All well and good, but what about taxes?

It would be great if part of the plan is to (finally) repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy passed under George W Bush. We need money to pay for education, infrastructure, etc. It would also be great to go after tax havens in other countries.
I really like Bernie's message about wealth inequality; many of the Democrats in power fail to address this, which is a mistake. They are too beholden to corporate money. I will always vote for the Democrats but their message could be much stronger and have more appeal if they weren't afraid to talk about corporate greed and wealth inequality.

[JayhawkSD]

2. Varies for unreality to tinkering around the edges.

"We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan;"
And where does that $1 trillion come from? We are $31 billion short of being able to pay for what we are doing now.

"increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave."
Study after study has shown that minor increases in the minimum wage have essentially no impact on business and on jobs. Only one increase on this level has been implemented long enough to be examined, in Washington state, and studies so far show that it has reduced jobs and cut hours, and that workers are making $125 per month less. Too early to be definitive, but it certainly is unpromising.

More importantly, it has not returned power to the workers through a return to collective bargaining. Economists cannot figure out why productivity is not increasing, because they do not understand the role that collective bargaining played in the process. It is not merely wage negotiation, but without it both wages and productivity remain depressed. Restore the power of unionism.

"giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs."
Why? The training programs benefit the employers by giving them "trained workers to fill the unfilled jobs." Why should they need a tax credit to do that? Their own self interest should lead them to do that, and it is only the prospect of having the government do it for them for free that is preventing them.

Or, restore unionism and let the unions provide the training programs. Again, it is in the union's best interest to have trained union members. In either case, the only reason the government is proposing doing it is because the parties who should be doing it know that if they don't do it, then the government will step in for them.

All of this is the classic "sounding brass, filled with noise and fury, signifying nothing."

[Beartracks]

3. I'm not sure a DOUBLING of the minimum wage is a minor increase.

Also, an infrastructure plan of a trillion-dollar magnitude is probably going to have to be debt-funded (the way only governments can do it). Presumably, an increase in commerce and economic activity would follow, taking advantage of the infrastructure improvements, and such activity would generate tax revenue.

You make a great point about the tax credit for training. Isn't training, as a business expense, already not taxed? (I really don't know.)

And a big YES to unions. Unions made the middle class possible and sustainable -- it's why the Republicans have systematically dismantled unions over the last 30+ years.

==============

[JayhawkSD]

4. Well, I may not have been crystal clear.

I was trying to say that a minor increase is never been harmful BUT an increase to $15/hr is a horse of an entirely different color and poses considerable risk.