Should Labour Income be Redistributed?
Who is more productive, someone who works or someone who does not work? Who should get paid for their time and labor, people who work or people who do not work?
Who should get paid more, people who work more or who have more merit because of their intellect and contributions to a company or society, or someone who works less and simply does a series of tasks to comply with a labor contract?
How should intellectual work be compared and valued next to manual work?
In an ideal world, people who get paid more are those who produce more –directly or indirectly- and for the benefit they provide to the largest amount of people. However, it is precisely producers, creators, and innovators who get penalized the most for their labor and who are charged the most taxes.
Now, to add insult to injury, the World Labor Organization, after conducting a study of salary distribution and compensation worldwide, seems to insinuate that it is “unfair” that those who work get paid according to their labor, their contributions, production, merits and market conditions.
The report, which appears to criticize wealth inheritance as a cause of inequality, as if those who inherit properties, cash or stocks are guilty of something, also points out that poorer countries tend to have much higher levels of pay inequality, something that exacerbates the hardships of vulnerable populations
“The distribution of salaries is very unfair throughout the world,” says the report. According to its authors, 10% of the workers of the planet receive 48.9% of the world’s remuneration. On the other side 20% of workers with lower incomes -about 650 million people- earn less than 1% of the global labor income.
The WLO’s reasoning is part of a trend where all globalist organizations are calling for the mass socialization of everything. About 10% of the workers of the planet earn 48.7% of the world’s remuneration because they work to earn it, not because of some unfair scheme.
Worldwide, in addition, if employees are distributed into three large groups,(low, medium and high income, only the group of high income has seen their lives improve between 2004 and 2017, while the middle and lower classes see their income cut salary, reports the WLO.
The WLO also wants to blame what it calls remuneration inequality on unfairness, as supposed to, for example, the fact that when imposing taxes on their populations, governments tax the middle class and the poor the most.
The report claims that the inequality of labor income worldwide has decreased, but at the same time criticizes this fact. He says that “it is a consequence of the growing prosperity in emerging economies, specifically China and India.”
In other words, while criticizing the so-called inequality in remuneration, and while admitting that it has decreased, it presents this decrease as a statistical fact, instead of what it is, an advance in the growth in the income of populations that previously earned less. .
The report entitled The Labor Income Share and Distribution, obtained data from 189 countries, which makes it the largest worldwide collection of data from studies on the workforce.
According to the organization, it allows for the first time to analyze internationally comparable figures of the percentage of GDP that goes to workers and their subsequent distribution by countries and regions.
When an analysis of income equality is made, much is said about how much is earned, but never how much of that income is confiscated by governments, at the point of taxes, and as a consequence of this, how little money remains in the pockets of the citizens a posteriori.
The WLO assures that the share received by the middle class (the group made up of 60% of middle-level workers) decreased between 2004 and 2017, going from receiving 44.8% to 43% of the money.
The most shocking fact offered by the WLO, due to its falsity, is that the decrease in the wages of the workers of the middle and lower class is due to the increase in the wages of the populations of workers who earn more.
“The data shows that in relative terms, the increase in the highest labor salaries is associated with losses for all others, both middle class workers and those with the lowest incomes are seeing part of their income decrease,” says Steven Kapsos, head of the WLO’s data analysis and production unit.
Much attention must be given to the phrase “in relative terms”, as this means that a direct connection cannot be made between the rise in wages for one group and the decrease in the wages of others. That is, there is no cause-consequence. What this means is that the WLO believes that this is the case, even if the data does not prove it.
The WLO then makes an extremely absurd comparison. Compare the wages of low-class workers in Africa with the wages of workers in the lower European class.
According to the report, in sub-Saharan Africa, 50% of workers at the lowest level receive 3.3% of labor income, while in Europe they receive 22.9%, as if workers from both continents work at same conditions, doing the same things and producing the same and at the same level.
It is important to understand that income and salaries paid to a worker anywhere in the world depend on many conditions and those conditions have different levels of relevance in different places. There is no sense in pointing out that a shoe maker earns more money in the United States than in Beijing, or that an apple picker in California has a higher salary than a cotton farmer in India.
The WLO’s report also forgets to mention that it is due to the existence of highly paid workers in western nations that the world can, for example, feed those who cannot produce their own food, or that technology advancements and scientific discoveries made in North America or Europe bring better living conditions to less advantaged populations in Asia, Africa or Latin America.
Two immediate solutions that could be enacted to end what the report calls remuneration inequality is to lower taxes on the middle and lower classes, so they can keep more of their hard earned money, and to eliminate unnecessary regulations on independent workers and small businesses so people can begin to provide for themselves, while reducing the size and influence of the State in their lives.
If only 10% of the workers of the planet receive nearly half of the income of the total, it is because they are ones who produce the most, who innovate the most, who create the most and who have the greatest positive impact on society, to because there is something inherently unfair in the way they are compensated.