The Equity Project grew out of two basic arguments:
one about poverty, and one about democracy.
The poverty argument rests on an unresolved question:
What is a fair exchange for forty hours of hard work? Most people
can agree on the basics - food, clothing, shelter, child-care, and
a trip to the doctor when you are sick. However, a full-time job
often won’t buy these basics, since it would take about $13/hour.
And despite the “new economy”, welfare policy, welfare
reform and countless laudable job-training and economic development
programs, there aren’t enough $13/hour jobs to go around.
Faced with this problem, The Equity Project sought
a practical way to create family-sustaining jobs that would allow
the working poor to escape poverty. One answer is to allocate compensation
more equitably, through modest increases in minimum wages (we call
for a living wage at a minimum, which is $7.90/hour in Greater Philadelphia)
along with profit sharing and a share of company ownership.
The democracy argument is underscored by two widely-publicized
trends: a growing wealth gap and startling corporate scandals. Contrary
to all the hype about the booming 90s, ordinary people have not
benefited from the economy’s growth. The average American
household is no better off in terms of real wages or financial wealth
than its counterpart in the 70s .
While the average Joe isn’t doing any
better, corporate scandals have reminded us that the wealthy are
gaining, and at an alarming rate. Over the past thirty years, average
CEO income has increased 280%, while average household income has
increased only 10%. Past history shows that as wealth and power
concentrate in fewer hands, as they are now, checks on corporate
behavior erode and government increasingly responds to fewer voices.
The Equity Project seeks to broaden ownership as a way for ordinary
people to have a stake in the financial mainstream, and, by extension,
balance out the influence of powerful insiders in the democracy.
|
|