The Haves and Have-nots: Everybody Doesn’t Want or Need to Be An Entrepreneur

What ever happened to the fanfare for the every-day worker? As our nation’s Capitol becomes a whirlwind of vitriol and name-calling, I recall the music of Aaron Copeland and his Fanfare for the Common Man; and wonder why the common laborer has been abandoned. Meanwhile, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, the poor continue to get poorer and the rich continue to get richer. The poor are free to scrap for the crumbs left them after the vulture capitalists have come and gone; and they have courage beyond measure to struggle with daily food insecurity, often with families to feed. And the rich are free to keep writing the rules that sustain this disparity, and possess all the bravery it takes, not to mention the money of course, to buy as many politicians as possible.

How did we get here? Again? The lessons learned in the early 20^th century have long been forgotten it seems, in this new one. Since concern over wealth disparity is often mistaken for envy and memories of unfulfilled dreams, I offer this preface: Having long ago exceeded expectations for a poor Mexican girl growing up in the middle of nowhere in the Arizona desert dust, I envy no one; for my life is enriching already, and often in ways beyond simple measure.

However, the messages delivered to most Americans on a daily basis is one of failure without this particular car, or life insurance plan, or fancy beer or outrageously priced clothes or décor. It is the steady barrage of an aggressive marketplace, always telling us how not enough we are if we don’t have money. And everybody with something to sell wants in on it, especially a market-driven news media, as if that makes any sense in a true democracy, that races to bring us footage of our very own race to the bottom – of everything beautiful and free.

We have now been conditioned to respect and revere those with the most money because that must mean that they are the best people, even though this is exactly the opposite of what is written in most western scripture. Take for example, the TV show, Undercover Boss. Whenever major networks claim to reveal the “reality” of being the boss of a major corporation to the ‘little people,’ I grow profoundly suspicious; but I tried to keep an open mind.

In the particular episode I watched, the CEO of a major airline was being profiled. He was a nice white Catholic man who lived in a great big mansion, complete with an indoor basketball court, and had a whole bunch of kids who all went to private school. When he was working side by side with the people who do the heavy lifting for his airline, of course he was all thumbs. That’s what people want to see, right? The boss making a fool of himself? We all find this very cute and somewhat empowering for the workers, not to mention humbling for the boss.

Prior to this occasion, the boss had no idea how working split shifts and taking on more than one of the major tasks that need to be done because there aren’t enough employees, makes the lives of the workers that much harder. Until he spoke with them, he had no idea how many of them had to work other jobs just to put food on their tables. Moreover, he learned of the hardship that a recent 10% cut in pay had brought to their families, who were already living paycheck to paycheck. So, the answer was to donate some money to charity and to restore the 10% cut within the next three years. Wow! How generous.

Perhaps what a lot of people saw was a good man who was becoming more aware of his employees and their working conditions. Great. Perhaps they also viewed the eventual restoration of a lost pay-rate to be a generous move, even though the workers will still lose purchasing power every year. What I saw was a man who was asking his employees to suffer in order to subsidize his lifestyle, and who was unabashed in asking them to sacrifice, while not noticing that perhaps he could do with less much easier than they could. I understand that everybody does not perform tasks that are as highly valued in our labor market, and that those who invest and risk at a greater level, should be rewarded at a higher rate. I don’t think the new guy in the mail room should make as much as the chairman of the board. But I do think that the new guy in the mail room should not have to work 2 or 3 jobs in order to subsidize his boss’ indoor basketball court.

In many ways and for many years, more and more of the daily financial risks have shifted from being assumed by corporate management to being assumed by the employee. Similarly corporate interests have also shifted their risks, not only to their employees, but to their consumers as well. So we have gone from defined benefit retirement plans to 401ks; from manufacturer and/or owner/occupier liability to mandatory arbitration agreements, most of which nobody reads. All of this means that corporations and those who run them, have decreased their liability and in so doing, have increased their wealth. Additionally, the benefits of our latest economic recovery have overwhelmingly gone to the top 1% of the wealthiest wealthy.

This is not sustainable for a number of reasons. First of all, people are starting to wake up and get pissed off, and if they ever unite, a true people’s revolution here in America could make storming the bastille look like a walk in the park. But even before that happens, markets cannot be sustained by the wealthy alone. Without a middle-class with the means necessary to purchase goods and services, there will be no demand and, hence, no market. This is where we are now, and the situation is made worse by the congressional dog and pony shows of late.

I remember when I was in grammar school, one of my teachers explained the difference in incomes and lifestyles this way: Some people have an entrepreneurial spirit and are somewhat more risk averse than others. So, if this person started a business, having invested the time, effort and capital in the business, then he should be paid a higher salary than his workers. However, if there was not enough to pay himself and the workers, then he had to pay the workers first, because he had to honor his commitments to them. And when there was a surplus, because he took the greatest risk, he was not obligated to share the surplus, and was free to spend it in any manner without question.

On the other hand, my teacher went on, some people don’t like taking risks and prefer a steady paycheck and a safe retirement. And so, this person would get a job, remain a loyal employee whose sustained efforts contributed to the company profit, and when it was time to retire, there would be a nice, comfortable pension in place to sustain the worker and keep him or her from falling into poverty. The key to this model was loyalty – the loyalty of both parties to one another, in which each was able to see to the needs of the other. The worker was loyal to the company and the company was loyal to the worker.

We don’t have that anymore. Conservatives may blame unions for this, although it was the labor movement that created the scenario my teacher spoke of; but I blame congress for everything. And in blaming congress, I blame us, because we were too busy buying on credit to notice that our American way of life -- the one that took decades to build jointly -- was being purchased right out from under us. And we kept electing people who are no longer available to listen to us because they cannot hear us when they are tucked into the pockets of the 1%, et al.