LWE: Living Wage Employers

The Old Philosopher – John M. Miller
(Lifelong Learning Hilton Head Island – March 24, 2016)

For decades Congress has periodically, but also rarely, discussed legislation to require employers to pay a particular minimum wage. The process by which this discussion comes up is determined by many factors: the economic climate at the time the discussion takes place; which political party is in power in both houses of Congress; who is the President at a given time; what is the mood of the electorate (are they feeling benevolent or are they tight-fisted?); is prosperity or is paucity more prevalent in the national psyche when the politicians summon up courage to debate a minimum wage, and so on.

Without question, many economists insist that any minimum wage law causes increased unemployment. Even if that is correct (and there are many other economists who strongly refute it), as a people Americans need to ask ourselves: Is it equitable in the strongest national economy in the world that capable and dependable workers should be paid less than a living wage for their labor? Shouldn’t those who work at least the customary forty hours a week be paid enough to be able to sustain themselves and their families with a modest standard of living?

In our nation’s economic history, only very liberal Members of Congress are ever willing to spearhead efforts to raise the minimum wage. People such as Bernie Sanders, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Bella Abzug, and Robert LaFollette come to mind. Not too many other names spring readily from the crevices of the cranium. The fact that only one of that short list of politicians is still alive suggests that elected representatives to our federal legislature imagine they are highly unlikely to gain widespread popularity by promoting a living wage for lower-income workers. They reason, probably correctly, that it is an excellent way to lose many votes while gaining almost no votes.

Furthermore, whenever Congress does summon up courage to debate increasing the minimum wage, it is always several years late in doing so. Typically a number of years pass before the issue is brought up again, and after that it may take a few months or years to bring the matter to a Congressional vote. They almost never establish a permanent automatic cost-of-living increase in the living wage. They always do that for Social Security benefits; after all, most geezers vote. But they won’t do it for the minimum wage, because low-income people as a group are among the least likely to vote. If there is one thing that motivates politicians, it is to do the things people who regularly vote want done. That reality is one of the major weaknesses of democracy as it is practiced in any nation anywhere in the world. What people want done may not be the right thing to do. And what they don’t want done may be the right thing to do. But that pattern won’t change; in order to be elected or re-elected, politicians will try to legislate what the people want, not what they believe the people need.

Is there any way to overcome the impasse of a mandatory minimum wage which is consistently too low, and which permanently consigns millions of Americans to poverty or near-poverty, simply because they cannot earn enough income to lift themselves out of their economic morass? In the more benevolent welfare states of some European countries, nearly everyone receives enough income from either private sources or the government to live in relative comfort. In their system, no one is allowed to fall between the social cracks. But in the United States of America there has never been a sufficient political impetus to guarantee a minimum income to all our citizens. Richard Nixon, of all people, tried to encourage the idea, but he failed to push it through Congress.

Might it be possible for a reasonable minimum wage to become a voluntary program, instead of a legislated program? And if so, how would it work?

Currently there are several thousand companies which provide their lowest-paid workers at least fifteen dollars an hour in 2016 dollars. That is the figure that has recently been suggested as an acceptable minimum wage. Virtually every corporation in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and many other localities pays at that level. They do so, not necessarily because they are inherently benevolent, but because they know they must pay that much in order to attract and keep a talented work force and because they know it is more expensive to live in those particular localities.

There are many Americans who would like such companies not only to be publicly recognized but also to be actively patronized. Many corporations proudly proclaim that they support the local or national Chamber of Commerce or the Better Business Bureau. For decades the “UL” symbol on electrical devices and other things has informed consumers that Underwriters Laboratories approved those products as being safe. Other products have had the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. By these publicized means of communication, these are voluntary measures by which manufacturers inform the public that their products or their corporations meet certain standards.

Might such a system of recognition work for the corporations as employers, rather than merely for their products? If already they are providing a living wage for all their workers, might it not be to their benefit as well as to the benefit of informed consumers to reward those companies for their humane employment practices by giving them intentional, voluntary patronage?

So here’s an idea. Every company of any size anywhere in the USA which signs an agreement always to pay all of its employees a living wage would be allowed to advertise itself as an LWE (Living Wage Employer) company. It also would agree to raise wages whenever necessary by the cost-of-living increase determined for Social Security recipients. The company would be issued green LWE logos (green is the color of money, see?) for the front doors of all its offices in all their locations. It could identify itself on its letterhead and in classified employment ads as an LWE company. That way prospective employees would instantly know it always pays at least a living minimum wage to everyone it hires.

Because obviously there would be some costs associated with such a voluntary program, who would pay for setting it up? Perhaps a large philanthropic foundation would volunteer to underwrite the fairly minimal costs of instituting and permanently operating LWE (or whatever more appropriate acronym might be selected). Alternatively a not-for-profit foundation itself might be established to fund the program.

Politicians fear losing votes by doing the right thing for lower-income citizens. Therefore they refuse to do what they know is the right thing.

There is far more support for the notion of a living wage among the population at large than there is in the US Congress or in state or local jurisdictions. The American people are among the most benevolent people in the world. If everyone knew at a glance which companies are LWE corporations and institutions, many of us would purchase products or services from those companies, and we would avoid doing business which organizations which refuse to adopt the LWE pledge. “LWE” (pronounced, I presume, “EL-WE”) could become as ubiquitous in the American lexicon as NASA, FBI, CBS, ESPN, NFL, NBA, or PC (for either “personal computer” or “politically correct.”)

But there is more. The LWE logo would be put on every product manufactured by an LWE company. Thus when we went to buy a television or a package of frozen green beans, we would look first to see if the LWE logo is on the front door of the business selling those products. If it is, is the logo on the TV or the package of green beans? When we go to a restaurant, whether it is a locally-owned business or part of a regional or national restaurant chain, does it have an LWE logo on its door, along with the logos of various credit card companies? For those who truly care about fair wages, if there is no logo, there is no purchase.

Would such a program result in shaming, or in encouragement? Yes! Yes, employers should be shamed into paying all their workers a living wage if they are not now doing so, and yes, they should be encouraged for having done so by consumers intentionally availing themselves of their products and services, rather than the goods and services of non-LWE groups. Mom-and-Pop businesses as well as GM or Exxon can choose to be LWE, because they consciously decide it is the right thing to do. It will likely have a lowering effect on executive income and dividends, but boards of directors will conclude LWE is the right way to go. And many of them already have far more income than is necessary under any reasonable compensation scale.

If a company believes it cannot afford to pay all its employees a living wage, is it operating with an ethically acceptable business plan? Is it right not to pay people enough money who work hard for a full work-week to be able to live on their income in relatively carefree comfort?

Laissez-faire caveat-emptor capitalism disappeared with high-button shoes through the efforts of such people as Eugene V. Debs, Theodore Roosevelt, Norman Thomas, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Shirley Chisholm, Geraldine Ferraro, and Ronald Reagan. However, it still is given tacit support by a populace who have no means of knowing which corporations are truly fair to their workers and which are not. LWE would alert people to the fact that, at least in wages, a company seeks to be fair to its workers.

LWE would be a reward to organizations which publicly declare their support for equitable income for everyone while at the same time punishing those companies which refuse to do so. However, it would not be a government-regulated system of checks and balances but a voluntary system regulated by the good will of the American public.

American politics as currently practiced almost everywhere in the USA, but especially at the federal level, probably will never do the right thing to benefit lower-income workers. A strong majority of politicians simply lack the moral courage to take bold ethical action, because they are convinced the people also lack that courage. Our legislators will not risk losing the next election by doing the right thing, because they have convinced themselves the people do not want to do the right thing.

Poverty Costs; A Living Wage Pays. The notion of supporting Living Wage Employers takes almost no courage at all. It may cost us a small fraction more in our personal cost-of-living, but the fairness thus derived is certainly worth the price. They are our brothers and sisters who are toiling at seven or eight or ten dollars an hour. They are not unknown outcasts from a lower class of human beings. Until they are paid fairly, we shall continue to consign them to lives of perpetual poverty, with little or no hope of escape. And as a society we shall continue to pay the price of that neglect.

Dare we place the concept of “the living wage” in the hands of citizens of good will, or shall we allow it to remain in the unwilling hands of politicians, who will seldom if ever seriously address it? Citizens have it in their power voluntarily to improve life for our low-income neighbors, and ultimately it shall benefit all the corporations who pledge to provide a living income for all their employees.

Shall we LWE, or shall we not?

The OLD Philosopher, John M. Miller, is a still-active clergyman who has been preaching regularly for over fifty years. He lives on Hilton Head Island, SC.