Containing some grains of truth, this argument actually fails at multiple points. Unemployment benefits are not indefinite, most states require at least part-time work in order to receive social benefits, and the Covid checks ran out years ago. It astonishes me that people are still using that argument.
Others argue that wages are insufficient but this argument also is less than convincing. For the poor and working poor, the idea that you're just going to dig your heels in and remain unemployed while holding out for a higher-paying job is a view out of sync with reality.
Without a doubt the explanation is complicated and there are many factors at work but one that is often overlooked is the relationship between part-time work and the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.
The growth in part-time work was already a hot topic in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis. While the Right lamented the government bail-out of the auto industry and the temporary controls it placed on that sector, others saw these events as a breaking and subjugation of the unions akin to what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers in 1981. It was just one union that Reagan dealt with directly, but the act sent a signal across the entire labour market and to Wall Street. This move accelerated the break-up of American unions and the shift to right-to-work states - and eventually trans-national outsourcing in the 1990's.
Obama's move was critical, another milestone in the dismantling of union power and Wall Street responded with a new regime of part-time labour which divorced workers from everything like health care and other benefits to paid leave and overtime.
While Obamacare was a gift and blessing for many who hitherto had no access to to America's profit-based health-care system, it never addressed or challenged the insurance industry's control of the health care industry and it failed to divorce the question of health insurance from employers. Health insurance here is a misnomer as it's not a question of cost-benefit analysis made by individuals (as some continue to argue) but rather it's a simple question of access. Without coverage you live in the medical wilderness. You will be turned away, secretaries will hang up on you, and you will live in a nightmare of uncertainty associated with inflated costs even while drowning in paperwork as you seek relief. In some cases physicians won't deal with you, and in others they demand up-front payments, and in some scenarios will (in defiance of medical ethics) opt for less than appropriate procedures due to these financial considerations.
For my part, I wouldn't care if the United States had a system like Canada or the NHS in the UK. It makes little difference to me. I do not see how many doctors and others in the medical industry can function in the US system without closing their eyes. This is admittedly a broad and very general statement as the system is complicated and there are many straightforward positions and tasks that don't really fall under the shadow of this discussion and I also understand that most people within the system are not really privy to all the complications surrounding access, costs, and billing. Although I also insist that many have simply and very deliberately chosen to close their eyes and don't really want to see the ugly side of things. They don't want to feel guilt or shame as they take their paycheck.
The aftermath of the Financial Crisis and recession not only made part-time work more normative but with it (and with the help of rising Smartphone technology) came the rise of floating schedules. Instead of three 8-hour days, you might work five 5-hour days - more shifts but more or less the same hours. Your schedule is likely to change every week meaning that it's all but impossible to procure a second job as you can't commit to any kind of regular availability.
But for businesses that have to remain open such as in the retail sector this shorter-shifts/part-time work effect will create more jobs even if they're all of less value to the employees. There's no doubt in my mind this has contributed to the shortage - along with the fact that under the new regime it's all but impossible for these workers to get a second job.
It would be remiss not to mention cultural decline and even laziness. But I also frequently encounter a new kind of lower class or working poor person that is different from the one encountered fifteen or twenty years ago. The system has just broken these people and defeated them. Some of this is due (in part) to the GOP's attempts to curtail all subsidies and benefits. The end result is the minute one starts to get ahead, or advances up the ladder by a single rung - the bottom drops out. They lose their subsidies and while earning more are suddenly poorer and more desperate than ever. Rather than let them succeed and wean them off the subsidies they are simply taken away. This is why workers in some cases will actually turn down raises and promotions. I know of cases like this - with deli workers and the like. If they get a raise they lose everything (health care, housing subsidy, food stamps) and are destitute. One either has to leap up ten rungs on the ladder or stay in cruise control at the bottom. Operating in the lower-middle is like a death sentence. They are literally stuck.
I run into a lot of people that have simply given up. Some of them are in the twenties and they see little point in trying. They work more hours but their costs go up and they're poorer than before. The arguments concerning morality, self-dignity, and the like carry little weight with them. They are defeated.
One wonders what will happen if the benefits they now receive are taken away? How will the masses respond? The shame this class once possessed is now gone as our culture has all but eliminated the concept. In the case of this lower-working class or working poor, their shame has turned into a kind of defiance - and admittedly in some cases, entitlement. You see it standing in line at the grocery store. Food stamps used to be something embarrassing - today there is no shame and increasingly I see people living in nice houses and driving nice cars using them - simply because they're eligible. These are people that would have been horrified at the thought of taking such welfare only a generation ago.
Of course, the question of the morality of an employer paying such unsustainable wages is not entertained. It would seem they have no duty or obligation. We're led to believe this 'morality' is determined by the market. It continues to astonish me that so many Christians have embraced such Utilitarianism.
This condemnation of employer greed (resulting in low wages) packs a real moral punch when it comes to the corporate sector and companies with profits in the millions. But it is a different tale when it comes to a small-town retail business such as a grocery store. The profit margins in the post-Wal-Mart world are now so minuscule that higher wages will break these companies. Or, in other cases they might be able to pay fewer workers more money (and give them more hours) but that would mean fewer actual jobs - and create other headaches for them. And given the propensity of modern workers to 'call off', a skeleton work staff can be almost impossible. It only works if everyone shows up and no one takes time off.
What these employers do is offer part-time positions in order to avoid falling afoul of Obamacare obligations regarding health coverage for full-time employees. Full-time jobs are increasingly rare in the retail sector. If they have them and don't offer health care - and these workers go on the marketplace, the employer pays penalties. Once again - and from both sides of the equation, I cannot understand why health-care remains wedded to work and employment. Large companies can negotiate health-care packages with low premiums due to the number of people on the policy. But small businesses don't have a chance and so they assiduously avoid full-time workers.
The Obamacare marketplace opened up a new world for lower-class self-employed people like me. For years I had no health coverage and could not afford to go to the doctor at all. And if I did I usually had no means to pay the obscene bill - which always seemed arbitrary and inexplicable. Needless to say if I ran my business and did my billing in such a manner I would be labeled 'shady' and a 'crook' - and rightly so. These institutions can get away with it - because they're institutions. For some reason large buildings, grand offices, uniforms, letterhead, and the like allow you to operate with a different set of ethics and from a position of power. It's the same with the banking and insurance industries and of course utility companies.
Of course the present system is maddening for the self-employed. You have to guess your income for the year which is all but impossible. If you guess wrong and make more than you projected, then the government views it as they paid too much to help you and wants the health care subsidies returned. Needless to say the amounts can be rather shocking. And who gets all this money? The private insurance industry of course. They're the real winners in the Obama-care system. It's a gold mine for them.
The insurance industry still dominates everything. You cannot figure out what anything costs and no one can tell you. Deductibles are massive but you still get discounted prices when visiting a doctor - but it never makes much sense. No one can explain it. Consequently people like me just throw their hands up in their air and stay away. I might have something I'd like to deal with but if it's going to cost thousands of dollars - I don't have it and no one can actually tell me what my cost will be. Effectively the whole system remains a big racket.
And as long as health-care is wed to employment and treated as an employer obligation then it's going to affect the labour economy.
And so while Obama is considered the arch-leftist and socialist by many Americans, he helped break the unions and handed a tremendous gift to the insurance industry - and thus Wall Street. It helped some. There's no doubt that things are better today than they were twenty years ago and yet in the grand scheme of things it was and remains a colossal failure. And even now there are still about ten US states that have not expanded Medicaid coverage leaving millions in limbo - making too much money to fall under state coverage but not enough to qualify for access to the health marketplace and its various subsidized plans.
Back in 2013 and 2014 there were many talking about how Obamacare was going to result in more part-time work but few seemed to grasp this would lead to a proliferation of job positions and thus potentially a worker shortage.
A store with say 20 full time employees and 10 part-time ones would now become a place with 4 or 5 full time people and perhaps 35 part-time positions. That's what the math suggests. That's ten new jobs - but they're all lesser jobs that won't sustain a person. If the schedule is floating then the person is in a bind and will make less money and probably end up relying on more subsidies. People may lament how there's little incentive for them to break with these subsidies and become self-sustaining. True enough, but increasingly there's almost no way for them to do it. And as such, they are effectively stuck.
There are lots of jobs but none of them pay anything approaching a living wage. And with the proliferation of jobs, there just aren't enough workers. Has this driven wages up? Of course, but it's not keeping up with inflation and so the raises mean little and again unless you can 'leap' several tiers at one time, a raise can prove harmful overall.
And what does this do to the larger economy? Fewer and fewer of these people can afford to eat out in restaurants and they pretty much shop at one place - WalMart. How do they deal with all of this? We see it. People stare at screens and in the Rust Belt there's a proliferation of drugs and a drop in life expectancy. People are defeated, bitter, and angry and thus subject to the demagoguery of frauds like Donald Trump. A second Trump administration will only make the situation worse as he and his allies will work to undo more of the policies and programmes that help the poor and pour more money in the pockets of the investor class and the war machine.
The great irony is that some of his most fervent supporters are these people at the bottom that stand to be harmed the most by his policies.