And, when more people who actually live here are paid what they're worth, or at least closer to it than now, they will be willing to spend more disposable income to support other industries. This is what was intended with the stimulus bill on a more general scale - to give local contractors more income through more work on highway and other public works maintenance ... which they would then either use to hire/pay employees or spend themselves in their local economies.
Tangent: This is also a side effect of welfare that its detractors never seem to stop to think about. Without getting into the corruption of the social welfare system - which has plenty in how the money is doled out presently, certainly - when people receive money and they don't travel far away, they have to spend it where they are. Local grocery and other stores benefit; hell, Walmart gets a ton of money out of it (which it COULD use to pay its employees better, but that's our whole bigger point - like a snake eating its own tail here, LOL).
Likewise, even though there's been some corruption in the union system (c'mon, when there's money at stake, and influence, what system with it ISN'T going to experience corruption? It's like Congress, and nobody's calling for their disbandment), its net result is that people's jobs are secure from an employer's whim - yes, it makes it harder to get rid of the incompetents, but on the other hand, it means the line worker isn't going to get fired because she refused to let her foreman fuck her in the bathroom. This means more security, which lulls people into spending more money - most of it locally for cars and hairstyles and TVs and food and movie concessions, etc. etc. Unions also see that people get fairer wages and benefits (which aren't really benefits per se, just a split-out share of wages), which makes them able to spend that discretionary money locally.
Now, in opposition, let's look at who in a company is most likely to be able to afford to travel often overseas and dump all their money on cheaper goods. Oh, wait ...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-03 11:12 pm (UTC)Tangent: This is also a side effect of welfare that its detractors never seem to stop to think about. Without getting into the corruption of the social welfare system - which has plenty in how the money is doled out presently, certainly - when people receive money and they don't travel far away, they have to spend it where they are. Local grocery and other stores benefit; hell, Walmart gets a ton of money out of it (which it COULD use to pay its employees better, but that's our whole bigger point - like a snake eating its own tail here, LOL).
Likewise, even though there's been some corruption in the union system (c'mon, when there's money at stake, and influence, what system with it ISN'T going to experience corruption? It's like Congress, and nobody's calling for their disbandment), its net result is that people's jobs are secure from an employer's whim - yes, it makes it harder to get rid of the incompetents, but on the other hand, it means the line worker isn't going to get fired because she refused to let her foreman fuck her in the bathroom. This means more security, which lulls people into spending more money - most of it locally for cars and hairstyles and TVs and food and movie concessions, etc. etc. Unions also see that people get fairer wages and benefits (which aren't really benefits per se, just a split-out share of wages), which makes them able to spend that discretionary money locally.
Now, in opposition, let's look at who in a company is most likely to be able to afford to travel often overseas and dump all their money on cheaper goods. Oh, wait ...