The official blog of the Libertarian Party
July 23, 2007
The Great Society (of the 21st Century)
Once upon a time in United States, working actually had some economic risk to it. If you lost your job, you were racing against the clock to find another before real financial hardships set in. That was your motivation for finding another job. It instilled a golden work ethic in people.
But today, it's much different, especially if you lose your job to outsourcing:
Under a Senate bill to be introduced today, computer programmers, call-center staffers and other service-sector workers who make up the vast majority of the nation's workforce would for the first time be eligible for a generous package of income, health and retraining benefits currently reserved for manufacturing workers who lose their jobs to international trade.
Their intent?
Democrats say the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program would begin to reweave the social safety net for the 21st century
Last year, the government spent close to $1.1 billion dollars on the TAA program, and the proposed changes would double this figure.
If their applications are approved, workers can receive two years of benefits on top of state unemployment payments, which typically last six months. The benefits include income support payments, job training, job search and relocation assistance, and a tax credit that covers 65 percent of monthly health-insurance premiums. Workers over 50 who take a new job at lower pay are eligible for wage insurance, which makes up half the difference between their old salary and the new one, up to a maximum of $5,000 a year, for two years.
The government approved petitions covering around 400,000 workers although less than 100,000 received benefits. However, new proposals would open the program to many new workers:
Baucus's proposal, in addition to extending benefits to service workers, would eliminate the rule that reserves benefits for jobs lost to U.S. trading partners. Help would be available for any worker whose job moves anywhere overseas. The bill also would streamline the application process for hard-hit industries, allowing the Labor Department to certify workers industry-wide.
Fortunately, the White House seems to be at least a little skeptical of the bill; however, it remains to be seen if it has the backbone to stand up to Congress, especially if the bill passes with strong bipartisan support. Previously, the White House supported reauthorizing the program.
Last week, White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment on the Democratic proposals for expansion, except to question their cost and the wisdom of covering service workers. With those job losses, he said, "it becomes impossible to draw lines that show the displacement is owing to trade."
So, the discussion boils down to this: Does the government have an obligation or responsibility to provide for the citizens who lose their job to free trade?
Posted by Andrew Davis at July 23, 2007 11:19 AM
Reader Comments:
This is obviously another attempt to buy votes. Congress knows a growing portion of the voters are disgusted with the incompetence of the two party system. They are trying to stop people from jumping ship.
This libertarian would be willing to compromise with liberals who want these kinds of relatively-inexpensive safety net programs if we could have a government that respects our civil rights, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and an end of all the huge entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare that mostly tax the middle class to hand out money to the middle class.
Are the political elite planning to expand this, next time, to include those workers whom have lost their jobs because their jobs are simply no longer needed to the same degree in our ever-changing, ever-growing market? A lot of good people lost their candle-making jobs when the lightbulb was invented (not to mention all the "unfair" competition candle-makers received from the Sun!), after all. Didn't they deserve money stolen by the government from the common man, too?
I break ranks with libertarians on this issue. Libertarians bought the Busah lie that outsourcing is good for the country. They cite cheaper goods. I lost my computer job, and the best I could get is working part time in a super market. Those cheap goods were beyond my budget. Companies also get tax breaks for outsourcing. This should stop. Believing Bush's lies shou;d also.
You all know it's going to continue to get worse.
You know that RIGHT?
AGAIN, IT'S NOT 'JOBS' PEOPLE REALLY WANT/NEED..look around you..PLENTY OF HONEST WORK/"JOBS" TO DO!!
..it's federal reserve tokens ("dollars to most/all Republicrat mullets) people really want/need..
..yet most/all apparently haven't a clue as to the fundamental nature, origin, etc. of what they really want/need!!..
..it would seem OBVIOUS this is a bad way for life, 'society,' etc. to proceed!...indeed!.. ;o)
This particular subject is a rather difficult one for me as the technology company I work for just laid off 1000 people from our plant here and there are going to be several hundred more in the coming year as they continue to outsource. We just can't compete with foreign based markets so we are joining them and mostly moving operations to Singapore and China. So far I still have a job but several of my friends and coworkers were not so lucky.
I have no doubt that there is plenty of work out there for people willing to work, but I have disabilities which prevent me from being able to do a lot of those jobs. That is why I went into electronics in the first place. But job security is a huge issue for me.
But I am not sure that giving out two years of federal unemployment is the answer. We need to figure out a way to keep more of these jobs here in the first place and make it possible for us to complete in the global marketplace. I am not an economist but if you can go to China and do the same job for half the overhead then why not go there? That is just business 101, but for those of us living though the layoffs that doesn't help things much.
Matt: "We need to figure out a way to keep more of these jobs here in the first place and make it possible for us to complete in the global marketplace. I am not an economist but if you can go to China and do the same job for half the overhead then why not go there?"
One valuable approach would be to repeal the regulation and taxation that makes it much tougher for large corporations in certain industries to keep their operations in the USA. This legal burden isn't found in the countries where those companies are relocating. I'm not claiming this would stop every single company from relocating overseas, but the regulatory/tax climate is a major factor in such decisions.
I'm 49 years old, and have been struggling to pay bills on an apartment and an old car all my adult life. I've never had a house, never owned a car less than 4 years old. I am curently looking for a job, having to change my entire career at nearly 50 years of age.
I have no intention of applying for any of the various government benefits, or even seeing if they are available. If offered, I will refuse them.
Sound stupid? Well, perhaps it is.
Nonetheless, I was raised to believe that one's own hardship does not justify stealing from others. And if the government takes people's money by force, and give it to you because you asked.... well that's receiving stolen property, is it not? Doesn't that make you a willing accomplice to the theft?
I dunno, perhaps I'm just too "old school" for my own good. But personally I have always believed that "morals" or "principles" that you only apply when it's *convenient* are nothing more than dressed up lies.
I've been lied to all I want, thanks.
Free market solution? Buy (as far as can be determined) U.S. made goods and services. And complain to companies that outsource.
A couple things:
Every job posting I see anywhere I look online is for IT jobs, so even if they are outsourcing why can't the IT people who get laid off from the biggest of big companies find a job in their area? I don't get it? Maybe they need to learna somewhat different IT skill, but I think there are jobs out there in the industry.
JT is right that the taxation and regulations are the hindrance, not the salaries of the workers in foreign countries. They get favorable tax breaks or no taxes at all to operate overseas whereas here it's excessive and rampant.
Sam, I don't mean to suggest you shouldn't do what you want, it's your life, but since you brought it up...they are taxing YOU so YOU should benefit from that taxation. It's a noble position you've taken, but don't forget the burden you already pay through taxation. You should get a benefit from it. It's somewhat like buying food and then letting it spoil. The money was already collected by the thieves. I'm no friend of taxation by any stretch, but I've paid plenty of taxes and would DEMAND my return on investment if that were due to me.
I have no problem with the gloabl economy. I have a problem with unfair trade practices being imposed on us by our government. They screw us and companies leave. Big surprise.
Sam, since the government forced your employer to pay into the unemployment "insurance" fund money that might otherwise have gone to you, it makes sense for you to try to get at least some of that money back. Take whatever the normal unemployment deal is, if you can put up with the attendant bureaucracy. Only accept checks up to the amount you estimate was paid into the system on your behalf (you should be able to figure that out from paystubs, if you've kept them). If you must take a stand about refusing anything, pass up the "additional, extended" federal benefits that surely come directly out of the pockets of your fellow citizens.
I relocated to another state after quitting my programming job back in 2000. Then the tech bubble "bursted" and I was forced to relocate to where I was from. For 6 years I worked random jobs ranging from security guard to assembly line worker.
Were the jobs there? Yes. Was I getting them? No. I wasn't asking for very much at all, yet I watched the experience requirements edge higher and higher for increasingly lower pay. Government jobs did open up, but I was wholly opposed to working for the military industrial complex, which is where most of them were created.
If my chosen career needs to be propped up by the government then it means I am either a) not good enough or b) I chose the wrong career.
I found my way back to programming eventually, in a company that is too entrenched to outsource. Do I see any future in programming? It's a mixed bag, but one thing I will surely not do is whine to government to fix the problem. I would rather they simply decrease their collective burden so that I will not have money that is taken away from me in the first place given back to me under a politician's terms. Our government is most of the reason we are top heavy. Eliminate some of their wasteful positions and let me keep what I earn. I want to succeed using my own labor, not their compassion.
This country is heading toward Communism at an alarming rate. Eventually it will be too much for most of us. Where do we meet when it's time to cecede?
Americas problems can be solved with one blow.complete privitazation of every sector of life even law enfrocement. elimination of NASA, other departments like energy, education and the worst of all the IRS.
Marx said that communism is for the advanced economies of the world and that a progression towards socialism was inevitable. I'm not a fan of Marx's principles, but it looks like he was right.
I'm tired of continuing to give benefits to people because they got left behind. I've read the above comments and I feel for you all, I really do. But it's not the governments fault that you were laid off. Work is cheaper elsewhere and these foreign countries give breaks to companies for relocating. I'd fire you and move too. The problem is the field is not level and the government is taking the wrong approach. We need to allow companies to work freely and fairly. Raising taxes on either us or corporations (really the same thing since the costs are passed on) to pay compensation for workers only increases the costs of doing business and will quicken the pace in which they leave. Ford just posted a profit for the first time in a while and it was because they closed a lot of unprofitable plants, fired excess workforce (mostly white collared jobs), and reduced benefits. They're now starting to become competitive. If the government continues to increase expenses on companies, they will find other places to cut.
Robert, I don't completely agree that everything should be privatized. There is a balance that needs to be reached. The FDA, for example, needs to be a government organization. It is intended to ensure the safety of the American people and privatization would decrease its effectiveness (as ironic as that sounds). Government organizations aren't efficient, but they are better able to handle certain tasks. Look at the military for a good example of that. The LCS and DDG 1000 are contractor led efforts. They're also the most expensive ships in planning. The military tried to go private to increase efficiency and decrease costs. The exact opposite happened and they're now taking every ship program back under government control. The ship building effort was efficient, but costs increased because of a lack of accountability and control. The ship-builders didn't care about costs, just bottom line. The government was writing the checks so who cares. If you privatize the FDA, SEC, law enforcement, etc. you have the same problem. It's a blank check. You can't have a private police force send bills to people every month and the people have no say. It's extremely inefficient. What we really need is the government to consolidate and eliminate unnecessary programs (Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc.) and improve those that are under its true scope (the military, law enforcement, border security, etc.).
We need to make the USA a more attractive place in which to do business, and that means reducing the tax and regulatory burden drastically.
| 
This is obviously another attempt to buy votes. Congress knows a growing portion of the voters are disgusted with the incompetence of the two party system. They are trying to stop people from jumping ship.
Posted by: Steve at July 23, 2007 02:44 PM