TIME, I THINK, FOR A SCARE STORY TO LIVEN UP THE PROCEEDINGS.

Imagine what it would mean if we were to reexamine our corporate assumptions about prerogatives, priorities and worker pay. Not that it’s going to happen, just imagine.

There are two trend lines that clarify a great deal about the nature of our society, its priorities and its values. One would be the distribution of wealth, and the other the incomes of its lower-tiered workers.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities “Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality,” by Chad Stone, Danilo Trisi, Arloc Sherman and William Chen (2013), we draw the following:

“The broad facts of income inequality over the past six decades are easily summarized:

“The years from the end of World War II into the 1970s were ones of substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s. The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while clearly substantial — did not change much during this period.

“Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.

“The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the ‘Roaring Twenties’).

“Wealth (the value of a household’s property and net financial assets minus the value of its debits) is much more highly concentrated than income, although the wealth data do not show a dramatic increase in concentration at the very top the way the income data do.

“Data from a variety of sources contribute to this broad picture of strong growth and shared prosperity for the early postwar period, followed by slower growth and growing inequality since the 1970s.

“From 1979 to 2007, just before the financial crisis and Great Recession, average income after taxes for the top 1 percent of the distribution quadrupled. (Italics mine.) The increases in the middle 60 percent and bottom 20 percent of the distribution were very substantially smaller.

“Incomes fell sharply at the top of the distribution in 2008 and 2009 and increased only modestly in 2010. Although the average level of income of the top 1 percent of households remains well below its 2007 peak, the increase in the average income of the top 1 percent of households from 1979 to 2010 was four to five times larger than that of the middle 60 percent and bottom fifth. (Italics mine.) Moreover, the Piketty-Saez data discussed next show the share of income received by the top 1 percent was higher in 2012 than in 2010, suggesing that the pattern of disproportionate gains at the top has indeed resumed, just as it did following the dot-com collapse earlier in the decade.

“Income concentration returned to 1920s levels in the past decade. The Piketty-Saez data put the increasing concentration of income at the top of the distribution into a longer-term historical context. … The share of before-tax income that the richest 1 percent of households receive has been rising since the late 1970s, and in the past decade has climbed to levels not seen since the 1920s. The vast majority of the increase is accounted for by the rising share of before-tax income going to the top 0.5 percent of households.”

Of substantial significance is the issue of minimum wage requirements. For the federal government this is $7.25 an hour, surely an amount sufficient to maintain a family of four in very comfortable fashion. Or so one would believe if one followed the anguished cries of Republicans over the dire possibility of an increase. (Note: California has, of course, just taken a gigantic step toward providing a life of ease and comfort for its workers by raising its minimum to $10 an hour.)

Roll out the champagne! The corporate executives who strongly opposed this gratuitously generous government gouge into their annual bonus will, we believe, adjust in time, and we foresee no really serious consequences in the executive suite; those urban mansions, 10-room Tahoe lakefront “cabins,” Spanish villas and mountain retreats in British Columbia are secure, along with those growing portfolios.

But hold! Fasten your seat belts. In the next 60 seconds, a trip to folks in serious pain! I quote from Robert Reich, “Nation of Change,” March 2, 2014:

“House Speaker John Boehner says raising the minimum wage is ‘bad policy’ because it will cause job losses. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says a minimum wage increase would be a job killer. Republicans and the Chamber also say unions are job killers, workplace safety regulations are job killers, environmental regulations are job killers, and the Affordable Care Act is a job killer. The California Chamber of Commerce even publishes an annual list of ‘job killers,’ including almost any measures that lift wages or protect workers and the environment.”

Since when can’t a decent, God-fearing, hard-working American family live comfortably on $7.25 an hour?! The mere existence of the question gives testimony to our plight and reinforces the agony of the right, the rich and their GOP protectors. Surely it would be both straightforward and incredibly clarifying to add a Chamber sponsored published prohibition against any corporate display of humanity!

Reich notes that in the four years after he recommended a raise in the minimum wage in 1996, the U.S. economy created more jobs than were ever previously created in any four-year period. (Makes no sense! Need to review those figures! Obviously rigged!)

“Most companies today,” he writes, “can easily absorb such costs without reducing payrolls. Corporate profits now account for the largest percentage of the economy on record. Large companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion in cash they don’t even know what to do with. Many are using their cash to buy back their own shares of stock — artificially increasing share value by reducing the number of shares traded on the market.” Not to mention making out like bandits in the process!
Focus — eyes on the blackboard. Let’s give some attention to a few more realities involving government charity and commerce.

From “Report: 75 percent of corporate subsidies soaked up by richest companies,” by Tom Boggioni, Feb. 26, 2014: “Citing a study conducted by taxpayer watchdog group Good Jobs First, Dave Sirota at PandoDaily reports that Fortune 500 companies have received $63 billion in subsidies from the U.S. government, with 75 percent of those dollars going to just 965 major corporations.

“The study, called ‘Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,’ shows that those dollars are not going to the entrepreneurs, who are often cited as the ‘job creators,’ but to established, highly profitable corporations.

“Good Jobs First’s study shows that the beneficiaries of these subsidies are often hidden beneath complex layers of holding companies, shell firms and ownership agreements. The group discovered that an incredible $110 billion — or 75 percent of cumulative disclosed subsidy dollars — are going to 965 large companies.

“Fortune 500 firms alone have received more than 16,000 subsidies, at a total cost to U.S. taxpayers of $63 billion. Typically these government/private industry deals are promoted as ‘incentives’ or ‘economic development,’ although there is little evidence that they result in job creation and may, in fact, hurt taxpayers.”

And the list goes on and on. But to close on a note that will bring a smile to the lips of right-wing faithful throughout the land, let me note my favorite of the lot. Most of you will have already guessed it. Those free market-loving Koch brothers, Charles and David, have received $88 million in government subsidies to continue their heartwarming and epic struggle to free our beloved land of the tyranny of conscience and the obligations of humanity.

Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.