Several days ago, a friend posted on Facebook in support of Hillary Clinton joining the presidential race. One of her family members then posted the following response:
[Clinton’s] agenda is what scares the shit out those of us who would like to retire. Work 45 years and now we get to pay for the deadbeat lazyass folks who prefer to sucktit rather than pay their own way.
Other than general right-wing fear that liberals are trying to establish a socialist welfare state, I had no idea what they were talking about. So, I asked for clarification. I asked the responder to be more specific and to provide some evidence that people, in general, aren’t working as hard as people once were or, at least, aren’t working as hard as the responder is.
Then it occured to me, I have evidence to the contrary, actually. I’ve read a number of articles recently, which cite studies, that completely invalidate the responders expressed objections to what they saw as Hillary Clinton’s agenda. So, I wrote the following response:
Here’s what I see:
During the last 40 years, unemployment had remained fairly steady, tending to decline, until the recession when it jumped up (source). That recession, I’ll remind you, was caused by an irresponsible financial sector, not by laziness.
That means that the people that worked hard to get a degree cannot find jobs. So, they are being underemployed. As a matter of fact, most of the people using public assistance are underpaid workers. Not non-workers or under-workers. Just workers that are underpaid (source).
Did you know that the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation? If it had, it would now be $21 (source). That means that people doing the same work as 40 years ago are effectively making almost 50% less.
Still, across America, workers are working harder than ever. For less money (source).
I researched and wrote that entirely on my phone, by the way. That’s not really relevant to my point, but I found it fascinating how easily I was able to put it all together without using a traditional computer at all.
Anyway, I went to post my argument, and kept receiving an error. My friend had deleted her original post. She doesn’t like discussing politics with her family, and she didn’t want me to push. Still, I was proud of my point and my effort. So, I’m posting it here. The downside is that most of the people reading this agree with me and are already aware of the points I made. The person who could maybe benefit from this information will now never see it, and will perpetuate their misunderstanding and unreasonable fear of liberal priorities.
Please note that my arguent was not in favor of Hillary Clinton. I might vote for her, I likely won’t depending on how the vote seems to be going and how the third party field looks (and now I’m looking more closely at Bernie Sanders). I’m glad she announced and if someone from the major two parties becomes president (which is overwhelmingly likely), I’d be happy if it is her. That’s my bias. Still, I believe my argument against there being some sort of emerging, supported, and powerful free-loader culture stands on its own.
Have you experienced peoples claiming that the Democrats want to take the money of those that work hard and give it to those that refuse to work? Do you have a counter-point to my argument or a source to dispute my points? Let me know in the comments.