FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

When Wages Flatline

It’s not news that the pay of middle-class workers has been virtually flat for more than three decades. Since 1979, the productivity of American workers — what they produce in an hour — has increased by 65 percent. Meanwhile, the inflation-adjusted hourly pay of workers in the middle of the earnings distribution — what they can purchase with what they are paid for an hour’s work — has gone up just over 6 percent. Much of this productivity increase has been captured by companies that are sitting on large cash cushions while middle-class families struggle to make ends meet. Ambitious proposals to address this disparity have been proposed. A government program to make much-needed investments in our crumbling infrastructure, for example, would provide opportunities for numerous private companies to expand employment in good-paying jobs and make investments in new equipment and technology. But such a program would require Congress to act, and consequently it’s on nobody’s agenda.

That doesn’t mean, however, that nothing can be done to raise the earnings of middle-class Americans. Here’s a modest proposal that could help do the trick: Let’s pay these workers fairly for every hour they work. Everyone knows that employers can ask salaried employees — supervisors, customer service representatives, social workers, counselors, support staff in law firms, insurance sales agents, food service managers — to work well past the 40-hour workweek without having to pay them for their time. Only salaried workers earning an annual income less than $23,660 ($455 a week) are eligible for overtime pay when their workweek exceeds 40 hours. This salary threshold has been raised to adjust for inflation — in 1975 by the Ford administration and again 10 years ago during the George W. Bush administration. In both instances, the presidents asked the Department of Labor to adjust the salary cutoff for overtime pay to take into account the effects of inflation. While the increases in the cutoff were welcome when they occurred, they failed to fully account for the effects of inflation. And the problem has only worsened in the last 10 years. Today, just 11 percent of salaried workers are eligible for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours a week, down dramatically from the more than 65 percent of salaried workers who were eligible for such pay in 1975.

In March 2014, President Obama, like his Republican predecessors, asked the Department of Labor to update the rules governing overtime pay to take into account the effects of inflation and make sure that salaried employees who lack bargaining power vis a vis their employer are fairly paid for the hours they work. If the Department of Labor adjusts the salary cutoff for eligibility for overtime pay to bring it back to its 1975 level adjusted for inflation, salaried workers earning up to $984 a week ($51,168 a year) would have access to overtime pay for hours above 40 in a week. About 6.1 million white collar workers would be eligible to earn time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. This guarantees that these employees are fairly paid for the extra hours they work, and could provide a meaningful boost to their income.

Of course, employers could choose to expand the hours of part-time workers who would prefer longer hours or hire additional workers and avoid paying overtime wages to current employees. While that would not raise the pay of middle-income workers, it would guarantee that these workers were actually paid for every hour they work. And it would increase the time they could spend with their families. It would also boost the earnings of a different group of middle-class workers who currently lack the hours they want or may even be unemployed.

While far from a complete answer to the stagnant wages of middle-income workers, raising the salary threshold, adjusted for inflation, to where it was in 1975 is an indispensable part of the solution.

Eileen Appelbaum is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

This column originally appeared on The Hill.

More articles by:
September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail