Another way to look at it is that these non health care providing employers saved the tax payer from not only footing medical care but from having to provide unemployment/welfare payments to them as well. health insurance is, or is not, part of your compensation package. Why wouldn't the employees at these companies just go work for the starbucks and other health insurance providing employers who clearly have a better compensation package? I would speculate because they cannot get jobs at those places. so they got jobs at the bottom of the barrel places(these are employers that may not be as skilled as their competition and in order to succeed need a lower cost employee.) What's beyond the bottom of the barrel? Unemployment. who pays for unemployment benefits/welfare? The tax payer.
Now you could argue that these low cost bottom of the barrel joints reduce pricing power for the better run benefit paying joints and so they have to run lean and cannot hire as many benefit enjoying employees because they won't retain customers if they start charging $12 for a hamburger in order to afford said employees. so if the bottom of the barrel guys went away the benefit paying guys could possibly raise prices and hire the employees of the bottom of the barrel guys and they would indeed have a job...and benefits. Which is fine...if you like $12 fast food hamburgers.
Just a devil's advocate position...many holes I'm sure.
cheers
bb
| 