Goverment Jobs Are Bad, But Government-Subsidized Jobs Are Normal?

One of the ludicrous notions that has infected our political discourse is that government jobs aren't 'real' jobs (tell that to fireman when your house is burning down...). But a lot of private sector jobs are heavily subsidized by the government. I'm not referring to private contractors hired by the government, but jobs that are supposedly private sector. Low wage private sector jobs. How are these jobs subsidized? Food stamps (now known as SNAP; italics mine):

Saucedo, who earns $9.70 an hour for about 26 hours a week and lives with her mother, is one of the many Americans who survive because of government handouts in what has rapidly become a food stamp nation.

Altogether, there are now almost 46 million people in the United States on food stamps, roughly 15 percent of the population. That's an increase of 74 percent since 2007, just before the financial crisis and a deep recession led to mass job losses....

While there are clearly some cases of abuse by people who claim food stamps but don't really need them, for many Americans like Saucedo there is little current alternative if they are to put food on the table while paying rent and utility bills.

"It's kind of sad that even though I'm working that I need to have government assistance. I have asked them to please put me on full-time so I can have benefits," said the 32-year-old.

She's worked at Wal-Mart for nine months, and applied for food stamps as soon as her probation ended. She said plenty of her colleagues are in the same situation.

So are her customers. Bill Simon, head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, told a conference call last Tuesday that the company had seen an increase in the number of shoppers relying on government assistance for food.

About forty percent of food stamp recipients are, like Saucedo, in households in which at least one member of the family earns wages. Many more could be eligible: the government estimates one in three who could be on the program are not.

"If they're working, they often think they can't get help. But people can't support their families on $10, $11, $12 an hour jobs, especially when you add transport, clothes, rent." said Carolyn McLaughlin, executive director of BronxWorks, a social services organization in New York.

Basically, food stamps have become a "low wage support program":

Over the past 20 years, the characteristics of the program's recipients have changed. In 1989, a higher percentage were on benefits than working, but as of 2009 a higher percentage had earned income.

"SNAP is increasingly work support," said Ed Bolen, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And that's only likely to get worse: So far in the recovery, jobs growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in middle-income wages as many higher-paid blue collar jobs have disappeared.

And 6 percent of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2009, and 3 percent in 2002, according to government data.

Bolen said just based on income, minimum wage single parents are almost always eligible for food stamps.

"This becomes an implicit subsidy for low-wage jobs and in terms of incentives for higher wage job creation that really is not a good thing," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, whose research shows raising the minimum wage would spur economic activity.

To phrase this another way, the service industries' profits are subsidized by the food stamp program, along with other social services such as Medicaid and SCHIP. If a worker is earning eight dollars per hour at forty hours per week (if he can find forty hours of work in this economy), SNAP alone accounts for fifteen percent of that person's gross income*. When you factor in other supports (Medicaid, SCHIP, Section 8, and the Earned Income Tax Credit), that percentage increases dramatically.

If these corporations didn't receive subsidies and had to foot the bill for even the mediocre subsidies, they would be broke, or else have to raise prices--meaning your low prices are someone else's poverty wage and welfare** dependency. Shrieking "Get a job, you bum" or "Stop freeloading" isn't appropriate here, since American consumers, in many cases, are aiding and abetting this outcome (besides, the working poor are working). This is a result of specific political choices, such as weakening private sector unions--these jobs are not an 'organic' result of the market.

But government jobs with decent benefits and salaries are evil. And socialist. Or something.

*Don't forget that all wages are taxed at 7.25% through the payroll tax. No exceptions.

**I'm using welfare colloquially to describe the entire system of social supports.

More like this

Raising the federal minimum wage isn’t only good for workers — it’s good for the federal budget as well, according to a new issue brief from the Economic Policy Institute. Released earlier this month, the policy brief details just how many low-wage workers have to depend on public assistance…
by Kim Krisberg In California, a minimum wage worker has to work at least 98 hours in a week to afford a two-bedroom unit at fair market rental prices. In Texas, that worker would have to work between 81 and 97 hours in a week, and in North Carolina it's upward of 80 hours per week. In fact, in no…
by Elizabeth Grossman What industry employs approximately 20 million Americans, or one out of five US private-sector workers, but whose median wage has workers taking home less than $20,000 a year? Clue: It’s the same industry in which it’s actually legal to pay $2.13 an hour, for workers who…
While we’re on vacation, we’re re-posting content from earlier last year. This post was originally published on March 6, 2012. The final rule on home health workers has not yet been published. By Liz Borkowski Back in December, the Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division published a proposed…

The wealth of the rich is made on the backs of the poor. By paying minimum wage, corporations are able to offer upper management record bonuses and extreme salaries. They destroy the roots of the plant in order for the top leaves to receive all the nutrients; how long can such an imbalance last? Eventually the imbalance destroys the plant.

It is easier, day by day, to see how the French Revolution came into being by the blind lust for wealth among the upper class. We are witnessing the same pillaging of our society as jobs are demeaned or destroyed by wage arbitrage.

Unstable systems collapse, rather quickly. Our corporate government is playing a global game of Jenga where jobs and regulation represent the blocks, as they remove more blocks collapse is inevitable. The only question remains when the collapse will occur.

Plan now, for a post collapse world, or suffer the consequences of thinking the world will remain frozen in its present conundrum.

By Duncan Sinclair (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink

So when Conservatives want to end all social assistance programs, AND lower the minimum wage, they either 1) have not thought the issue through very well or 2) are sociopathic monsters. Or possibly both.

So when Conservatives want to end all social assistance programs, AND lower the minimum wage, they either 1) have not thought the issue through very well or 2) are sociopathic monsters. Or possibly both.

It's good having a job generally. Govenmental jobs could be good and interesting. I think the main decision is the constitution of the team, who is working there.

I can't believe how negative people can be about conservatives. If they would just sit back and see themselves acting like that and realize they are not right.