What’s a Job Worth?

It is one of the most vital questions in a capitalist economy, and it’s almost always defined in money terms. In the not so distant past there use to be some occupations in religious or nonprofit organizations that were measured according to other standards. Today, virtual every job carries a monetary value and the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom has never been greater.

There are various estimates of this gap, but it’s generally accepted that the average private company CEO today receives well over 300 times the pay of the median American employee.  Some 50 years ago the typical CEO made 20 times what the median worker did.

This gap did not develop overnight.  It’s been in progress for some time, and it has a cumulative effect.

In 1980 the top one percent of Americans shared about eight percent of national income, while the bottom 50 percent received 18 percent.  In 2010, the one percent at the pinnacle of our economy enjoyed over 20 percent and the bottom half’s share plummeted to 12 or 13 percent.

Corporate leaders, their wealthy allies and their servile panderers in politics and the media argue wages and salaries in the US economy are set by the “market.”  Whatever the “market” will bear is what any job should pay. 

This answer portrays the “market” as some mystical, disinterested entity functioning beyond the control of human actors.  

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, in his The Wealth of Nations begged to differ:

What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (workman and master), whose interests are by no means the same.  The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible…

Smith also recognized who enjoyed the advantage in these negotiations:

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms.  The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen…In all such disputes the master can hold out much longer….Many workmen could not subsist a week, a few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment…. 

This has been the age-old story of modern capitalism.  A major objective of FDR’s New Deal was to restore some balance in this struggle by putting government’s hand on the scales in favor of workers, but in recent years, the natural advantage of management Adam Smith noted has been weaponized with an aggressive legislative and judicial agenda to undermine the collective bargaining capabilities of American unions as well as to make it more difficult for them to obtain financial support from the workers they represent.

A prime example of how distorted the struggle has become is the long running battle over increasing the federal minimum wage. The last time it was adjusted was 2009 when it was set at $7.25.  Obviously, it has lost significant purchasing power in the interim.  In fact, the federal minimum wage had its highest real value in 1968, when it was $1.60 per hour, $11.65 in 2018 dollars.

Under the circumstances, the argument for an increase to $15 an hour seems reasonable. On an annual basis that works out to $31,200, approximately half today’s median household income for a family of four.  Payroll and Medicare taxes would reduce the $31,200 to less than $29,000, by no means a luxurious living.

Why in America should anyone willing to work be paid less than $15 an hour?  Why should any employer expect someone to work for less? If an employer cannot pay a “living” wage, why should the job exist?   

The US has a $20 trillion economy.  Approximately 205 million Americans are in the workforce meaning a per capita national income of about $60,000.  Obviously, things are out of balance when so few  of those dollars flow to workers in the lower wage range.

It is a constant dilemma of capitalism that individual companies generally view labor only as a cost, but for the overall economy, workers are also consumers.  So a viable economic system needs to recognize that duality and the consequent importance of insuring that jobs are available and accessible to all willing workers. 

Some American companies have sought to escape that dilemma by outsourcing its workforce needs and extending its marketing reach abroad.  This has been particularly true in the tech industry.  But recent conflicts with China should be a wakeup call for this strategy, and a reminder that a major source of strength for American capitalism is this country’s commitment to representative government and the rule of law. 

Income inequality weighs heavy on the American economy today and is having a corrosive effect on the concord among our citizens undermining the willingness to find common ground on a host of issues beyond those strictly related to salaries and wages.  It is past time to rein in excessive executive compensation and share the fruits of American prosperity with workers at all levels.

Can We Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?

The longest serving member of the South Carolina House of Representatives has vowed to seek ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) when next year’s legislative session begins.  Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Democratic minority leader of the SC House, apparently knows the odds are against her in gaining approval to add the guarantee of women’s rights to the US Constitution.

It was on December 10, 1923, that the first attempt was officially made to enshrine such protection. Two Kansas Republicans, Senator Charles Curtis and Rep. Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., introduced an ERA proposal to Congress that day, ninety-five years ago.  It went nowhere.  By the way, Anthony was the nephew of Susan B. Anthony.

Not until the 1970s did the ERA make any significant progress.  In 1971 the US House of Representatives approved the amendment by a vote of 354-24.  A year later the US Senate followed, voting 84-8 in favor.  However, two Democrats, NC Senator Sam Erwin and NY Rep. Emanuel Celler, two old white guys, succeeded in attaching a seven-year ratification time limit, a seldom used caveat.  Therein lies the challenge Cobb-Hunter must address.

Initially, the time limit did not appear an obstacle. With Hawaii leading off, 22 states ratified the ERA by the end of 1972.  Another eight gave support in 1973 and three more followed in 1974.  At this point the ratification process began to stall and only two additional states, North Dakota (1975) and Indiana (1977) voted for the amendment before time ran out. Indiana was the 35^th state to ratify.  Thirty-eight are necessary.

In general, opposition to the ERA has not been straightforward---women do not deserve equal rights.  That would be easily rejected by most Americans.  Instead, arguments have been more deflective, perhaps not maliciously so, but still diverting attention from the true purpose and effect of the amendment which is simple in language but comprehensive in intent:

Sec.1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Sec.2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Sec.3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Antifeminist icon Phyllis Schlafly epitomized early naysayers arguing the ERA would eliminate gender-specific privileges for women, such as dependent wife Social Security benefits, separate restrooms and exemption from the draft.  She called her campaign STOP ERA, STOP an acronym for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.” More reasonable opponents, including some labor organizations, expressed misgivings about the ERA’s impact on protections for employed women regarding working conditions and employment hours.  

I must admit my initial attitude towards the amendment was wary. I was not opposed to “equal rights for women,” but it seemed they already existed and did not need reinforcement by constitutional amendment. But during the latter stages of the ratification campaign a student in my American National Government class at USC Spartanburg wrote a position paper on the ERA.  She laid out the case that protections women enjoyed were legislatively granted and were not only limited in scope and application but could be withdrawn by congressional whim or narrowly interpreted by judges.  Her arguments were so cogent, I became a supporter.

Events in recent years have reinforced the vulnerability to discrimination women face in today’s US economy.  The Equal Pay Act passed in 1963 purportedly abolished wage disparity based on sex, but in a 2007 decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiff relief because she failed to file her grievance within six months of the first discriminatory salary decision even though Lilly Ledbetter had no way of knowing about the ongoing disparity until years later. 

In January 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act overturning the decision but doing nothing for the former Goodyear employee.  Nor did it discourage the US Supreme Court from ruling in 2011 against 1.6 million women employees of Wal-Mart who were alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes the court claimed the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a “class.” 

There has been progress in reducing bias against women. Women participate in the military, they are increasingly found in leadership positions throughout society and their numbers in the US Congress just got a considerable bump up. Ratification of the ERA would reinforce these advancements.  

As for the ratification time limit, the 1992 decision of the US Congress to adopt the 27^th Amendment, which had been pending before state legislatures since 1789, is sufficient precedent for removing the ERA’s deadline.  Two states recently ratified the amendment in anticipation of possible congressional action; Nevada in March 2017 and Illinois in April 2018.

For twenty years South Carolina has been among the ten worse states for domestic violence; four times the worst.  In 2016, the last year for which there are statistics, SC ranked sixth.  How delightful it would be if SC were the state to push the Equal Rights Amendment over the top.