Biggest Creator of Low-Wage Jobs? Uncle Sam
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/09/the-bi ... uncle-sam/
The Biggest Creator of Low-Wage Jobs? Uncle Sam
Who employs more low-wage workers than Walmart and McDonald’s combined? You do.
A new study from Demos estimates that American taxpayers fund nearly 2 million low-wage jobs that pay workers less than $24,000 a year ($12 an hour or less). These private-sector jobs are generated by federal contracts, grants, loans and other programs (see chart).
Workers making $12-or-less an hour say that they are scraping by. Often on public assistance, they find it difficult to afford basic necessities like rent, food, health care and utilities. Because of sequestration, pressure on government agencies to spend less money may add even more to their ranks.
The prevalence of low-wage jobs is part of a larger trend as the nation continues to recover from the recession. The Washington Post notes that most of the 165,000 jobs added in April were low-wage jobs. A 2012 National Employment Law Project report found that three out of five jobs added during the recovery have been low-wage jobs, even though only one in five jobs lost during the recession were low wage.
The increasing number of low-wage jobs exacerbates the growing inequality gap between the richest and the poorest. As Jim Tankersley and Marjorie Censer report in The Washington Post, the disparity between CEO and government-contract worker pay is pronounced, particularly inside the Beltway.
Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos told the Post that “growing inequality and these larger, dead-end jobs are a national problem.” The report was announced Wednesday at an event at Washington, D.C.’s Union Station launching Good Jobs Nation, a new initiative started by a coalition of low-wage workers, labor, faith and community organizations calling on the Obama administration to help government-contracted workers enter the middle class by requiring better salaries and benefits .
The Biggest Creator of Low-Wage Jobs? Uncle Sam
Who employs more low-wage workers than Walmart and McDonald’s combined? You do.
A new study from Demos estimates that American taxpayers fund nearly 2 million low-wage jobs that pay workers less than $24,000 a year ($12 an hour or less). These private-sector jobs are generated by federal contracts, grants, loans and other programs (see chart).
Workers making $12-or-less an hour say that they are scraping by. Often on public assistance, they find it difficult to afford basic necessities like rent, food, health care and utilities. Because of sequestration, pressure on government agencies to spend less money may add even more to their ranks.
The prevalence of low-wage jobs is part of a larger trend as the nation continues to recover from the recession. The Washington Post notes that most of the 165,000 jobs added in April were low-wage jobs. A 2012 National Employment Law Project report found that three out of five jobs added during the recovery have been low-wage jobs, even though only one in five jobs lost during the recession were low wage.
The increasing number of low-wage jobs exacerbates the growing inequality gap between the richest and the poorest. As Jim Tankersley and Marjorie Censer report in The Washington Post, the disparity between CEO and government-contract worker pay is pronounced, particularly inside the Beltway.
The findings highlight inequality within the government contracting industry; as chief executives of major contractors rake in millions, many contract employees are struggling to get by, the report contends.
The area is home to many of the highest-paid contracting chief executives — the new Lockheed Martin CEO’s base salary alone is $1.38 million — and about 15 percent of low-wage contract workers, Demos estimates.
Stephen S. Fuller, director of George Mason University’s Center for Regional Analysis, said he has seen lower-wage jobs move over time from the federal workforce to contracted positions, particularly in the Washington area.
“Those were contracted out because they were cheaper,” he said, pointing to security and transportation jobs, among others. “The contract workers get fewer paid vacation days, fewer sick-leave [days]. They often work hourly, so you get what you pay for.”
Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos told the Post that “growing inequality and these larger, dead-end jobs are a national problem.” The report was announced Wednesday at an event at Washington, D.C.’s Union Station launching Good Jobs Nation, a new initiative started by a coalition of low-wage workers, labor, faith and community organizations calling on the Obama administration to help government-contracted workers enter the middle class by requiring better salaries and benefits .
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Did you even read the thing? It says government contracts to private sector generates these jobs.
"The findings highlight inequality within the government contracting industry; as chief executives of major contractors rake in millions, many contract employees are struggling to get by, the report contends."
The govenment awards contracts to private sector... who hire people at low wages while the Executives rake in millions of those tax payer dollars for themselves.
...
You're okay with that?
Hail, Hail!!!
People will look at that and say, we should force them to pay more to the workers or this is why gov't spending should be limited. Take your pick I guess.
Personally this is the reason why gov't spending is great in theory but poorly put into practice. Which is one of the reasons I would like to see it shrink considerably
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that that is an economic reality.
For example, The U.S. Army has a lot of tanks... functioning, operational, battle worthy tanks. Congress want them to buy more tanks... not because they need the tanks, but because the congressional districts that have a role in building tanks want the jobs... building tanks. So, they spend our money on tanks the Army does not want, nor need.
The low paying jobs come from that contract. Those jobs go to support of operations folks who don't really build tanks... they are janitors, building maintenance, etc... type jobs that the prime contractor contracts out to other private sector business. Who knows where these small business sub-contractors get their workers and what they pay them?
I'm not saying it is wrong... being a janitor requires little or no skills and should be a low paying job.
Hail, Hail!!!
The overruns that engineering contractors get away with are pretty incredible too.
The strange thing about that tank stuff if I remember correctly they claim it is more costly to re-open the plant when they do need the tanks than it is to just keep producing them
How about changing into not needing the tanks?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I am in complete agreement. We don't need the tanks... but, loss of the tanks means loss of the jobs of the people who build tanks and the people who support them. That is where politics, lobbying, all around sleaziness comes in. We are all paying those employees in those congressional districts that have a hand in building tanks.
And yes... once a production line is shutdown, it is very expensive to re-start it... that is how Geogian politicians (Sam Nunn, Saxby Chambliss) were able to keep the Lockheed C-130 production line going for decades... the 'Poster Child For Pork Barel Spending' according to Sen. John McCain. We don't need any more C-130s or M-1A-1s.. but, we get them. Why? Politics. Well paying private sector jobs in Congressional districts of representatives who sit on appropriations committees. Lockheed contracts out indirect support functions (janitorial, etc...) to private sector small business who hire guys hanging out at the Home Depot to empty waste paper baskets in office buildings.
...
Personally... I would MUCH rather see the spending going into projects to repair aging bridges, shoring up river levees, widening interstate highways, etc... because, at least, we have safe bridges to cross and protect our homes and farmlands from flooding... rather than 100 more tanks we really don't want... nor need.
Hail, Hail!!!