The GOP's Absurd Plan for the Economy: Lowering YOUR Wages

[upstatecajun]

Earlier this month, House Republicans laid out a perverse plan to lower working Americans' wages, supposedly in a bid to get employers to hire more of them (PDF). One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the “race to the bottom.”

http://www.alternet.org/news/150400/the_gop%27s_absurd_plan_for_the_economy%3A_lowering_your_wages/

[abelenkpe]

1. Lower wages

Slash benefits, smash unions and privatize all they can. Can't you see that will improve the economy........of the top 1 percent. :)

No really republicans suck.

[INdemo]

3. Isn't this what Hitler did in 1939 ?

[Kingofalldems]

2. Lowering wages has been the plan all along

rpubs represent Big Business, who has a vested interest in cheap labor.

[snappyturtle]

4. And they think that people having less money to spend into the economy

is good? How ignorant. When people can't buy due to lowered wages demand drops...how does that help?

[Scuba]

5. Aahhhh, but getting to your answer requires critical thinking. Unheard of in Republicans. n/t

[TahitiNut]

6. What MANY fail to realize is that the Great Depression was "cured" by ...

... FLSA, organized labor, and the resultant INCREASE in wages (to a LIVABLE wage), reduction in standard work hours (yielding an increase in "family values"), and the very creation of a Middle Class that became consumers of their neighbors' products and services.

The single MOST effective (bang for the buck) "stimulus") was the WW2 GI Bill which more than DOUBLED the size of the post-secondary Education sector, nearly TRIPLED the residential housing (along with durable goods), and created the greatest "Class Mobility" in the history of the US.

Without major aggressive steps to (re-)enfranchise the Working Class, we're doomed to the wet dream of the predatory capitalists.

[Turbineguy]

7. But... If they lower wages doesn't that result in a

TAX CUT? So it's alright then!

[opihimoimoi]

8. But if peeps hqave less money...how can they afford products and food?

[starroute]

9. Another fallacy of supply-side economics

They assume that if companies suddenly find they can hire more people for the same total payroll, they will -- instead of simply pocketing the difference.

The same fallacy is what's behind cutting unemployment benefits. They assume that if they make it cheaper for employers to hire people (by keeping the unemployment tax down), they will.

Silly, silly conservatives. They're probably thinking of the fact that when the price of consumer goods drops, more people can afford them. But employees are not a consumer good. No firm hires additional people unless they believe they can make more money as a result -- either in increased sales or by enabling existing employees to work more efficiently.

People do keep falling for the con job, though.

[Sheepshank]

11. Re-packaging Reagan's Trickle Down Theory

really won't make it work any better this umpeteenth time around.

[Sheepshank]

10. And then There was THIS Rep Comment

At a town hall meeting in Polk County, Wisconsin earlier this year, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) was asked whether he'd vote to cut his $174,000 annual salary. Duffy sort of hedged, and went on to talk about how $174,000 really isn't that much for his family of seven to live on. Then he went on to say he supports cutting compensation for all public employees, along the lines of what Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has proposed for the Badger State.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/gop-rep-im-struggling-on-my-174k-salary-video.php?ref=fpb

I don't even know where to start with making a statement on this.

Suffice it to say that the Reps are feeling pretty confident that they have destroyed collective bargaining and Unions and feel secure in making such public statements...they think the public employees have no way to fight back.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Companies hire because someone is buying their shit.

It has nothing to do with how much one unit of labor costs. A company doesn't treat itself to a few more employees because it has some money in the bank.

Cut wages and you cut demand for shit. Duh. Dumbasses.

The solution is a 35 hour workweek. Everything over 35 hours costs the employer double-time - including "managers".

[Kip Humphrey]

13. Globalist agenda: efficient markets working efficiently = $8.50/hr average US wage.

This has been plotted since the 1980s. Nothing new here except we are on the last leg of achieving this agenda.