My issue wasn't that some people think student debt forgiveness is a bad idea, but my feeling that the organization sponsoring the ad was organized and funded by wealthy people, and that, in my opinion, they were attempting to create a wedge between working class folks by appealing to their more selfish instincts.
This "I don't want that group to get a benefit simply because I do not qualify for it" mentality seems to be a winning strategy for the rich. They use it to create jealousy between various segments of the 90% of us who make below $125,000 a year all the while deflecting their own culpability for some of the ills of our nation.
I experienced the effectiveness of this strategy just a few days ago. I was speaking with a very nice co-worker about wages. She truly believed that there were some jobs that didn't deserve a salary of $15 an hour. She had totally bought into the rich people scam that paying a livable wage to the everyday workers of America was one of the causes of inflation. It reminded me of all the negative talk about unions that proliferated in the 70's and 80's when unions were in their heyday, and overall middle class wages were, relatively, as high as they had ever been. Unfortunately, too many middle class voters believed this propaganda. Since 1985, union membership has dropped by almost half, while middle class buying power has remained static.
The rich got richer by outsourcing middle class jobs overseas, and won the battle of who was to blame for stagnant middle class wages by convincing many Americans that it was lazy union workers that forced them to export their jobs.
Fade to another of those anti student loan forgiveness ads, and the narrator tells us that union workers who have been busting their hump (at real jobs, is the insinuation) are now forced to pay the debt of blue haired, gender studies graduate snowflakes who can't pay their own way. Imagine that, union workers who were vilified by the rich a generation ago, are now the good guys against lazy, elite, college graduates who don't want to work!
Let me be clear. The 90% of us MUST begin to evaluate these ads, and to understand that this concerted effort to pit us against each other is all designed to deflect the simple fact that there is plenty of money in America, plenty of resources that would enable all working people to earn a livable wage, but the rich do not want to provide us our fair share. As long as they can keep us at bay from demanding, in unison, for livable wages (as well as health and PTO benefits), they can continue to increase their portion of the wealth in America.
According to federal reserve data as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the US held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held just 2.6%. In 1990, those same top 1% held just about 10% less, 23.5% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held about 3.6%. Even worse though, is the change in wealth held by those in the 50 to 90th percentile of earners. Their percentage of America's wealth dropped from 36.7% to about 29%. Those are middle class workers, those making between $40K and $80K.
I have presented this example before but will repeat it anyway as it continues to be needed to be heard. Increasing hourly wages from $13 to $15 per hour is doable, without increasing inflation, if large companies with executives making $10 million a year or more would take a 1 or 2 million dollar pay reduction. For every $1 million, which is roughly $20,000 a week, 250 people could get a $2 per hour raise (40 hours times $2 is $80, times 250 equals $20K). $2 million gives 500 people that $2 per hour without altering overall pay roll, without passing along the extra labor costs to consumers, which is corporate talk for "we put our bottom line and stockholders needs above our customers ability to afford our product".
But Joe, you say, a 1 or 2 million dollar pay cut is a lot! Yes, it is, but when the average CEO makes $20 million per year, I believe they could struggle by on 18 or 19 million, don't you? Also, what about athletes? While I am certainly a sports fan, I believe that $40 million salaries for the top athletes in professional sports is ridiculous. I also believe they could live comfortably on $30 million, which would free up $10 million for all those people who work behind the scenes. Food vendors at the stadiums, office staff who support the organization's owners, players and coaches but earn average pay. Perhaps even lowering tickets (and food prices at the games) so that average people could afford to attend.
I know that the corporate mentality includes a cost saving aspect, and, of course, labor costs are usually 40, 50, sometimes even 60% of those costs. But, doesn't a livable wage for everyone result in less state and federal assistance (less spending)? When salaries for the everyday American allows him/her to live comfortably, to buy products and services that increase demand for those products and services, doesn't that make business more profitable?
Currently, the fed is increasing interest rates to combat inflation, thereby crushing the stock market which puts pressure on CEO's and corporate boards to reduce costs to maintain their stock price, and satisfy stockholders. Which is supposed to lead to less employment which leads to less spending which means less demand for products and services which leads to even more employee layoffs which may or may not cause a recession if all that can be coordinated enough to produce a "soft" landing.
So, not being an economist, I think that this means that higher unemployment means less inflation which is good for stock prices, but sounds counter intuitive to demand for product and services. Which leads me to my firm belief that Wall Street and Main Street are not only not in concert with what makes each successful, but might actually be on opposite ends of the pendulum, in that what is good for the rest of us, good paying jobs, is bad for Wall Street and those in the top 10% of incomes, which, apparently, includes those who sit on the Federal Reserve Board.
About a dozen years ago, I wrote a story about income distribution. At the time, I was thinking of a baseball player named Albert Pujols as the athlete in question, although I didn't name him, and he didn't follow the lead of my protagonist in the story.
Folks, the average CEO makes almost 250 times the salary of the average worker in their company. Star athletes make more money in one year than 40 average workers do in their lifetime. Pay inequality exists, working people who need state and federal assistance exists, because those at the top have made a conscious decision to maintain, and enhance, an income distribution system that benefits them at the cost of the rest of us, those of us in the 90% boat. And, worse, they create and pay for media propaganda that purposefully tries to create rifts between us, to convince us that it is the fault of those we share our 90% boat with.
We need to stop rocking our own boat, stop buying into the lies that our fellow boat travelers are keeping us from financial stability, that it is poor people, or immigrants, those at the very lowest rungs of the boat that are at fault, when it is clearly those sitting in comfort at the head of the boat, those who don't even do much of the rowing, but seem to have all the best seats, who are the problem.
So, the next time you see or hear an ad that tells you some blue haired college graduate, or refugee from a war torn country, or immigrant who has come to America to find opportunity and freedom, or even a hump busting union steel worker, is the problem with America, know that they are in the same boat as you, part of the 90% boat, and it is the other 10% that is the real reason why the middle class is shrinking, and half of us only own 3 percent of our great country's wealth.
No comments:
Post a Comment