By Robert Reich
It’s often assumed that people are paid what
they’re worth. According to this logic, minimum wage workers aren’t worth more
than the $7.25 an hour they now receive. If they were worth more, they’d earn
more. Any attempt to force employers to pay them more will only kill
jobs.
According to this same logic, CEOs of big
companies are worth their giant compensation packages, now averaging 300 times
pay of the typical American worker. They must be worth it or they wouldn’t be
paid this much. Any attempt to limit their pay is fruitless because their pay
will only take some other form.
"Paid-what-you’re-worth" is a
dangerous myth.
Does this mean the typical GM employee a
half-century ago was worth four times what today’s typical Walmart employee is
worth? Not at all. Yes, that GM worker helped produce cars rather than retail
sales. But he wasn’t much better educated or even that much more productive. He
often hadn’t graduated from high school. And he worked on a slow-moving
assembly line. Today’s Walmart worker is surrounded by digital gadgets — mobile
inventory controls, instant checkout devices, retail search engines — making
him or her quite productive.
The real difference is the GM worker a
half-century ago had a strong union behind him that summoned the collective
bargaining power of all autoworkers to get a substantial share of company
revenues for its members. And because more than a third of workers across
America belonged to a labor union, the bargains those unions struck with
employers raised the wages and benefits of non-unionized workers as well.
Non-union firms knew they’d be unionized if they didn’t come close to matching
the union contracts.
Today’s Walmart workers don’t have a union to
negotiate a better deal. They’re on their own. And because fewer than 7 percent
of today’s private-sector workers are unionized, non-union employers across
America don’t have to match union contracts. This puts unionized firms at a
competitive disadvantage. The result has been a race to the bottom.
By the same token, today’s CEOs don’t rake in
300 times the pay of average workers because they’re “worth” it. They get these
humongous pay packages because they appoint the compensation committees on
their boards that decide executive pay. Or their boards don’t want to be seen
by investors as having hired a “second-string” CEO who’s paid less than the
CEOs of their major competitors. Either way, the result has been a race to the
top.
If you still believe people are paid what
they’re worth, take a look at Wall Street bonuses. Last year’s average bonus
was up 15 percent over the
year before, to more than $164,000. It was the largest average Wall Street
bonus since the 2008 financial crisis and the third highest on record, according to New York’s state comptroller. Remember, we’re talking
bonuses, above and beyond salaries.
All told, the Street paid out a whopping $26.7
billion in bonuses last year.
Are Wall Street bankers really worth it? Not
if you figure in the hidden subsidy flowing to the big Wall Street banks that
ever since the bailout of 2008 have been considered too big to fail.
People who park their savings in these banks
accept a lower interest rate on deposits or loans than they require from
America’s smaller banks. That’s because smaller banks are riskier places to
park money. Unlike the big banks, the smaller ones won’t be bailed out if they
get into trouble.
This hidden subsidy gives Wall Street banks a
competitive advantage over the smaller banks, which means Wall Street makes
more money. And as their profits grow, the big banks keep getting bigger.
How large is this hidden subsidy? Two
researchers, Kenichi Ueda of the International Monetary Fund and Beatrice Weder
di Mauro of the University of Mainz, have calculated it’s about eight tenths of a
percentage point.
This may not sound like much but multiply it
by the total amount of money parked in the ten biggest Wall Street banks and
you get a huge amount — roughly $83 billion a year.
Recall that the Street paid out $26.7 billion
in bonuses last year. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or even a Wall
Street banker to see that the hidden subsidy the Wall Street banks enjoy
because they’re too big to fail is about three times what Wall Street
paid out in bonuses.
Without the subsidy, no bonus pool.
By the way, the lion’s share of that subsidy
($64 billion a year) goes to the top five banks — JPMorgan, Bank of America,
Citigroup, Wells Fargo. and Goldman Sachs. This amount just about equals these
banks’ typical annual profits. In other words, take away the subsidy and not
only does the bonus pool disappear, but so do all the profits.
The reason Wall Street bankers got fat
paychecks plus a total of $26.7 billion in bonuses last year wasn’t because they
worked so much harder or were so much more clever or insightful than most other
Americans. They cleaned up because they happen to work in institutions — big
Wall Street banks — that hold a privileged place in the American political
economy.
And why, exactly, do these institutions
continue to have such privileges? Why hasn’t Congress used the antitrust laws
to cut them down to size so they’re not too big to fail, or at least taxed away
their hidden subsidy (which, after all, results from their taxpayer-financed
bailout)?
Perhaps it’s because Wall Street also accounts
for a large proportion of campaign donations to major candidates for Congress
and the presidency of both parties.
America’s low-wage workers don’t have
privileged positions. They work very hard — many holding down two or more jobs.
But they can’t afford to make major campaign contributions and they have no
political clout.
According to the Institute for Policy Studies, the $26.7 billion of
bonuses Wall Street banks paid out last year would be enough to more than
double the pay of every one of America’s 1,085,000 full-time minimum wage
workers.
The remainder of the $83 billion of hidden
subsidy going to those same banks would almost be enough to double what the
government now provides low-wage workers in the form of wage subsidies under
the Earned Income Tax Credit.
But I don’t expect Congress to make these
sorts of adjustments any time soon.
The “paid-what-your-worth” argument is
fundamentally misleading because it ignores power, overlooks institutions, and
disregards politics. As such, it lures the unsuspecting into thinking nothing
whatever should be done to change what people are paid, because nothing can be
done.
Don’t buy it.