In the public media we find often stories related to income inequality. We find our politicians arguing for various forms of inequality, a few for some attempt at equality. We find the average Joe and Jane disgruntled by the problems related to a few getting most while the many getting little, but often being quite in the arenas which could impact change regarding their struggles. We find Sally and Sam who move from being the average Joe and Jane to being willing to speak out, lobby, stand in protest, occupy parks for various reasons related to the injustice of our economic and political systems. We also find Mike and Marsha, who are Joe and Jane but have fallen into the trap of the media and wealth hype and illusions and have become vocally supportive of political and economic systems that put them down, keep them poor, make them and their children poorer while making the gap between the wealthier and poor even greater, that make the hungry grow in numbers…
In recent weeks some thoughts have floated through my mind. In the United States there is a federal minimum starting wage. Each of the fifty states that make up the union also have wage laws, some of which set the minimum starting wage higher. Some local governments do as well. However, these wages are often far from livable, especially for families. Often those who pay their employees these wages also do not provide them will full time hours and want open availability, thus making it harder for an individual to have enough to get by, even if full time at the minimum rate would be enough to live on. There have been various proposals out there for increasing wages to be more livable, but rarely do they address the whole problem. Typically they focus on the wage per hour but not the hour per week. They say $x per hour is a livable wage in a location, but forget to mention that is if they are getting 40 hours a week… when many work part time (less than 30-32 a week), or work full time but not 40 as many companies don’t want to risk over time so even full time might be 32, 34, 36 and even at that $x rate that may not be enough to provide the necessities.
We have some states with increases built into their minimum, but still not livable, wage systems. These are great in they at least help keep the minimum wage workers at the same level as they were and not lower. However, this also exposes a problem. It exposes how people being paid at higher hourly rates, often do not see their income increase at proportional rates. So the gap between their starting rate and the minimum starting rate shrinks… brining awareness (if we choose to open our eyes and see) that those living on enough or less than enough to get buy is increasing. It exposes the reality of the shrinking “middle” and the growing “poor.”
We hear cooperation’s, politicians and others speak against proposals to tax corporations and wealthy at rates they were once taxed. We hear people call to cut the safety nets that keep people from starving. We hear arguments from them saying that to restore their taxes would lead to a loss of jobs. The reality is jobs are being lost regardless if we tax them or not. The reality is many companies are paying their top executives more, while reducing their lower paid employees, either number wise or hour wise as much as they can to increase their profits. They seek to keep as many in the part time roles to limit benefit expenses… The reality is that if the safety net programs are cut, people will have less funds to pay for food and other necessities which will make a direct impact on retail sales, which in turn will lead to retail establishments reducing the hours per employee and/or the total number of employees as their income shrinks, which will lead to even loss of sales, as there will be even more people with less to spend. The reality is, a reduction in those corporations taxes will not create more hours, higher wages for the low paid common worker, or more job openings. Instead the money saved on taxes will go to the executives and the shareholders.
The reality is that while in some states with high minimum wages and more safety net programs, even when their unemployment rate is higher they often have fewer people that are food insecure than in states with lower unemployment and lower wage rates and fewer safety net programs. So looking to the states with low unemployment for ways to reduce unemployment is probably not the solution. For what good is low unemployment if people even with a job still can not put food on their plate, a roof over their head, go to the doctor, and put clothes on their backs?
Beefing up our safety nets is needed. But it in and of itself is not enough. Taxing the corporations and those with great wealth in ways to help justly distribute the burdens of a nation and a globe is not enough. they are part of the equation, but only part of it. Raising minimum wages to so-called livable wages is a start, but unless we move from an hourly model to a weekly/monthly/yearly model reflective of the gospel story of the workers who got paid the same regardless of how long they worked, we will have a problem. For people will get paid that living hourly rate, but not given the hours to make it livable.
In pondering ways to try and reign in the ever growing gap between the poor and wealthy, I wonder if however our attempts to set “minimum wages” is the wrong approach. Perhaps we need to set “maximum ratios” instead, or along side. That is set in place a system where we say: The highest paid person in a company’s total compensation can not be more than z times the total compensation of the lowest. For example using the numbers of one company that I work for. My total hourly compensation (wage+401k match+employer side of insurance premiums+ employer social security tax+ my savings by using my employee discount+vacation accrual…) times 40 hours a week (more than I work a week) times 52 weeks equal several hundredths that of the President/CEO of the company. Even if we were to double that total so it was 80 hours a week the President/CEO would still be making several hundred times more than I per year. And there are many people working in this company for less than I do per hour and with fewer benefits than I.
People argue that these salaries are needed to keep people, and recruit people. However the US tends to have one of the highest ratios in the industrialized world, and the ratio has increased dramatically over the past few decades. Perhaps if we were to cap these ratios, it would lead to better income equality and fewer hungry people. If a company wanted to pay its top person more to incite him/her to stay or to attract a new head they would also have to increase the wages of their lowest paid employees… What would happen if the ratio went from highest to lowest went from 500:1 down to 50:1, or 10:1 or 5:1? Even in a company that has thousands of employees, it might not lead to drastic changes in the low end, in terms of new jobs or hours, or wage increases, but it may lead to just enough of an increase to make sure they can pay rent, and not have skip a meal every now and again. It may be just enough for them to not need to utilize the safety net programs. It may be just enough to help people have a restored sense of dignity, and perhaps help the people at the top have better awareness of the struggles, realities, and needs of those that labor hard underneath their “leadership” and management.
Is there also a way we could create an income pool that would help larger families out? That is a way so companies still could budget $x per job position but where a single person making way more than they need could give a portion of their income into that pool, and a family of say 4 with the wage worker(s) of the family not receiving an income sufficient for them all could draw from to meet needed expenses… (I’m thinking in part of organizations that have tried to pay people by their need rather than “rank” but struggled as they grew in trying to budget and mange such a system and so had to revaluate their pay system… thus recreating in a way such a system, but in a more budget friendly manner, and their are companies/organizations out there that have systems like this for sick time & personal leave where people can give their unneeded paid sick leave to those who are experiencing a need that leads to them having to be away from work a long time which could work as a model of how such an income pool could work.)
Just some of the many random thoughts in my mind of ways to try and help transform our current system into something just a bit more just and equitable. (if we could get to the days of all things in common, and making sure all were fed and cared for, as the saints of old did, or at least tried to do, I’m up for that as well…)
What are some of your thoughts and ideas?
Peace,
— Lyle II