It's The Economy, Doug
The New York Times must have been overwhelmed with letters reacting to Doug Besharov’s attempt to demonize low-wage workers as “welfare” recipients. Today the editors published an astounding six letters objecting to Doug’s commentary – and none in support. Inclusionist has already given a wag of the finger to Doug and his think tank – American Enterprise Institute – for participating in the attempt by social conservatives to extend welfare stigma to low-wage workers receiving publicly funded employment benefits. (I’ve commented on this before in my blog, see Low-Wage = Welfare? More Evidence of the Conservatives' Campaign.)
It’s a promising sign that most of the published letters focus on the economy, rather than “welfare” policy. Inclusionist blogger Rachel Gragg and I wrote one of them.
While we agree with Douglas J. Besharov’s analysis of the economic factors that drove the welfare cash assistance decline, as well as his concern for the economic well-being of low-wage workers, we strongly disagree with his characterization of working families that receive federally financed nutrition and health insurance as remaining “on welfare.”
Higher-wage jobs come with an array of employment benefits — health insurance, pensions, child care, paid sick leave, transportation subsidies — both through tax policy and from employers. Low-wage jobs, currently one-third of our labor market, rarely come with such benefits.
It is striking the extent to which the federal benefits available to people in low-wage jobs parallel the benefits available to those in higher-wage jobs through their employers and the tax system. Until low-wage jobs provide the same employment benefits as higher-wage jobs, we should insist that our government address this failure of our economy.
Rachel Gragg
Margy Waller
Washington, Aug. 16, 2006
The writers work at the Center for Community Change in Washington. They served as advisers on welfare policy to Senator Paul Wellstone and President Bill Clinton, respectively.