"Why do the hardest jobs pay the least?"

Some version this question came up more than once in conversations at the first Penny U. What work has value? Why doesn’t the value of work correspond with the pay? And can we do anything about it?

“I’ve been an employee, an owner, and a volunteer. Some of the hardest work I’ve ever done was as a volunteer, and I got very little respect for it. Why do you get more respect when money changes hands?” And another person asked, “What’s the relative value of a plumber, electrician, truck driver? A judgment is made of me because I drive a truck.”

Andy Stern, former president of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), visited Town Hall in January. Among other things, he challenged us to think about how the economy might be aligned with work that’s needed and valuable in society. “Early in the last century,” he said, “there were debates about whether a woman who stays home to care for a child is working or not. We need to answer that question again.”

A group of Penny U participants reported, “There are lots of examples of communities working together to improve their neighborhood. People play clean-up for no pay. You don’t get paid for community involvement.”

In his January talk, Stern asked, “Are we going to allow people to gain income, maybe not a ‘job’ but income, for doing things we think are valuable to society, like caring for children or reducing our carbon footprint?” And a group at Penny U asked, “Where would the money come from to pay for work that doesn’t pay now, or that doesn’t pay well?”

That is, can anything be done about the imbalance between value and work? What would make it affordable to do work that doesn’t pay? How could you gain income without relying on job pay? The Penny U group shared a few ideas:  The Alaska oil dividend was one example. Another was Jaron Lanier’s idea of a system of micropayments that would require large companies like Amazon and Google to pay you for the use of your data. And Stern said we could give ordinary people tax breaks for reducing our carbon footprint rather than giving the breaks to corporations.

Finally, the video that Edward just posted here (thanks, Gwen!) tells of another approach. Dated April 7, 2014, it opens by saying, “In Switzerland, an idea to guarantee every citizen a yearly income of 30,000 Swiss francs, regardless of other wealth or employment, has gained enough supporters to trigger a referendum.” The piece briefly covers the pros and cons of the idea, and a bit about its history and feasibility. It also includes a link to a transcript, if you’d like to read it instead. Check it out!

A few more notes from the October 6 conversation, including the text and background for each question follows in the next post.