Home > Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America Summary & Study Guide > Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America Group > Discussion Board

do you think an increase in salary would redress the lack of benefits, or its this completely separate problem

I’m not 100% sure that if low-wage workers were paid more salary, they would set aside money for health insurance premiums, particularly if they are young and healthy. Part of the current debate on health care is whether to mandate that everyone must carry health insurance in order to force everyone to share in the risk. Automobile insurance is mandatory, because otherwise some drivers would not purchase it and if they were to be involved in an accident, the costs would be passed along to those who do carry insurance. This is what is currently happening with health care. The uninsured wait until they have a medical emergency, and then the costs are passed along to those who do have insurance. If health insurance were to be mandated, there is discussion of providing tax credits to make sure that people have the funds to pay the premiums. This seems to presuppose that low-paid workers do not earn enough to pay for their own coverage.

Increase in earnings of a few individuals in any form - salary or benefits, will increase their real income, and thus benefit. However, increase in earnings of everyone in an economy, without increase in real output of the economy will not increase the real income of the people. Though people may have more money to spend in their hands. the price levels will increase also. The net result will be that people will be no better off. To improve the economic condition of the economy is a whole it is essential to improve the productivity and output of the economy as a whole.