The Morality of Peanuts

Trey Smith

Sometimes, when reading a long article, one sentence jumps out to grab you by the throat. This happened to me yesterday when reading an article at AlterNet about the efficacy of Living Wage Campaigns.

A quarter of all workers in 2009 — about 35 million people — earned less than the hourly wage needed to bring a full-time worker to the federal poverty line for a family of four.

It just amazes me that here we are in the 21st century and one-quarter of American workers can work full-time and yet don't earn enough to rise above a subsistence level of existence. Even worse, compared to much of the rest of the world, such "high wages" are the stuff of fantasy.

This is what is wrong with our current economic model. The people who do the lion's share of the hard work that makes the economic engine go are not compensated at even sustaining levels. Where does most of the compensation go? To the managers (and owners) of the people who do the work.

Now, this isn't a rant against managers because there indeed is worth in those who keep systems organized. The folks who own the means of production likewise play an important role in moving society forward. While both of these categories of people are key components and should be compensated well, this does not mean that the rest are merely owed peanuts.

Were it not for the workers themselves, nothing would be made and no services would be rendered. You could come up with a gizmo that would revolutionize modern life as we know it and that gizmo wouldn't be worth a hill of beans if you did not hire people to make it! Yet, it's not uncommon that the very people who make it can't afford to buy one for themselves.

How can that be explained? How is that fair and just?