When I worked in a Denver Hotel a few years back, when the economy was busting it's seams open, I recall our National Unemployment rate was 5%.
As I was instructed in Wharton School, my professors were diligent in pointing out that at about 5% unemployment, just about everyone who wanted a job, had one. Therefore, they said, you could consider that - full employment.
Ok, our hotel, located in central Denver, was running full, short of employees, was hard put to drag people off the street to work for us at standard wages. It was under a heavily managed Contract company in Dallas with a strict salary schedule for all positions, mine included. I was NOT senior management.
As I passed the center median in the street there was a pan-handler selling papers I asked him if he wanted a job, he said yes. I told him my hotel would hire him if he just walked in and applied.
He asked me what salary the hotel paid, and I told him. It was not a bad wage for the work involved, by the way. He snickered a little and then said, No thanks, I'll stay here on the corner.
I make more money begging for money than I would working 40 hours a week at that hotel. " But thanks for caring."
Now, that tells me several things: As Americans, are we too generous to the unemployed? Next, are the wages paid at the average hotel so substandard for their workers commensurate to their labors, that there should be somee measure of fairness applied? (that discussion could take drums of ink and months of public discourse).
If the first is true, why then shouldn't that portion of one's tax base given to support unempl0yment insurance be lowered?
No comments:
Post a Comment