Periodically so-called “buzz words” and “buzz phrases” become fashionable. Of late, the concept of “wage equality” has been bandied about by members of the administration, politicians and some media personalities.
In point of fact, on July 15, 2014, the publication “Mail Online” published a report with a self- explanatory title: “America’s 1 percenters are even richer than we thought: Richest actually control 37 percent of U.S. Wealth”
It has been said that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Similarly, the term wage “equality” is an emotionally evocative term that is viewed as something good and worthwhile to achieve. Generally this is the proper perspective, but of course it is important to pose some significant questions. For example, “How will equality be attained?” It is also critical to understand what baseline will be established for achieving equality. (Will wages be increased or will some wages be decreased to bring about this change? If, in fact, some wages will be lowered, whose wages will be lowered?)
Finally, as we will see, sometimes inequality in wages may not be a bad thing, after all.
Before we consider the words many politicians use, we would be wise to consider two important quotes from George Orwell, the author of “1984” and other significant literary works.
“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Having been forewarned let us now consider the definition of “equality.”
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines equality this way:
equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.
The term equality is often equated with fairness and an entire government agency, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) was established to combat discrimination against protected groups of workers who are treated disparately (unequally) because of factors such as race, religion, gender, disabilities or age.
Even young children inherently understand the concept of fairness — think of how many times a frustrated child is likely to complain bitterly that something or someone is “not fair!”
Recently various talk shows have discussed how the top one percent of Americans control a huge amount of wealth. Last week, the Los Angeles Times posted a video, “John Oliver tackles income inequality on ‘Last Week Tonight’“ in which Oliver spent considerable time on this issue.
America has made great strides to create a level playing field to provide all people with equal protection under our laws — indeed, the goal of the civil rights movement and the laws it inspired was to provide equal protection under our laws for all people, especially black Americans, going back to the issue of slavery, with equal treatment in the criminal justice system, where employment opportunities and where housing issues are concerned.
In short, equality has taken on the cloak of being, as the saying goes, “As American as apple pie.” Simply uttering the word “equality” evokes the emotional image of an American flag billowing in a gentle breeze with a clear blue sky serving as a backdrop.
Obviously if “equality” is good, “inequality” is bad. In most situations this is certainly true.
However, when Obama and other politicians, as well as talk show hosts, bring up wage inequality, they don’t ever discuss whose salaries will be used as the baseline against which paychecks should be compared as efforts are made to eliminate or reduce wage inequality. People tend to see and hear what they want to see and hear. It is akin to a Rorschach or inkblot test where the test subject is supposed to describe what they see in a blotch of ink.
The question that is never asked (or answered) is, “What groups are to be made more equal?” Today the average CEO of major corporations often earn salaries that are hundreds of times greater than the wages paid to the workers earning the least money in those corporations where, just a few decades ago, this disparity in wages was far smaller. It is naïve and, indeed, wishful thinking to believe that the push for “wage equality” is about narrowing the gap between the CEOs of most companies and the other employees of those companies, thereby expanding the middle class and increasing the standard of living for American middle class workers and their families.
In point of fact, the goal of the majority of advocates for the reduction of “wage inequality” is exactly the opposite: to lower the wages of American middle class workers and greatly reduce the gap between the middle class Americans and Americans living below the poverty line.
You will find proof of this in the prepared testimony provided by Alan Greenspan, when he testified before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee five years ago. We will get to his testimony shortly. His statements unequivocally dispel any doubt about the true goal of reducing wage inequality, the engineered destruction of America’s middle class.
The American Dream is inextricably linked to a vibrant and upwardly mobile middle class. The incentives for the creation of the middle class are created by an element of wage inequality. If this is confusing, consider that it is expected that generally, more highly skilled or educated workers should expect to earn more money than their lesser educated or skilled counterparts in the workforce.
This makes perfect sense and has, for generations, provided a strong incentive for American students, spurring them on to remain in school to obtain college degrees and even graduate degrees. This is why most people think of the money, time and effort expended in pursuit of advanced degrees or enhanced skills as an important investment in their futures. You could say that this is a case of “learn more to earn more.”
Where prospects for Americans, even those with the advanced degrees, achieving the “American Dream” in this economic era are concerned, a four-word phrase sums it up concisely:
Don’t count on it!
In December 2011 “Dan Rather Reports” aired a disconcerting hour-long report, “No Thanks for Everything” which reported on how highly educated and experienced American computer programmers are being replaced by programmers from India.
On May 15, 2007 a four-minute infuriating video was aired on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on CNN. It features an immigration lawyer’s conference in which lawyers were being coached to “not find qualified U.S. workers!” The lecturer is identified in the video as being Lawrence M. Lebowitz, the Vice President of Marketing for the firm of Cohen & Grigsby.