The Dignity of Labor

Today we celebrate Labor Day for approximately the 119th time. A teacher friend of mine calls Labor Day less a holiday than a stay of execution, especially since we begin in earnest the day after. And for years people have made the joke that we celebrate labor by taking a day off from doing any. But it’s a good time to reflect on the role of labor in society.

More and more as I think about things and look at history, something becomes very clear: The cause of human freedom advances only in societies where there is dignity associated with labor. In a society wherein the worker is treated as an interchangeable cog that exists to keep the engines of capitalism running, there is no dignity and there is little freedom. (Note that in all the so-called communist countries of the 20th century, the worker — though sung in high praises — was in effect considered property of the State and so expendable and interchangable.)

Why should this be? It’s probably not all that complicated. Freedom is largely the power to choose your own ends — to decide for yourself what you will attempt and pursue, to decide for yourself what gives your life meaning. On the other hand, when the worker is replaceable, expendable, and interchangeable, then he/she is also fungible — you can swap one for another. In that extreme, the worker becomes just a means to your ends. His or her own ends don’t matter anymore.

Historically, this happens when labor is cheap and plentiful. If there are a hundred workers hankering to do the same job you are doing, there’s a palpable downward pressure on the wages you can demand. In contrast, if labor is comparatively scarce, then workers can demand greater compensation and also greater stature. Such a condition existed in the earliest days of this Republic, when the opportunities out West and the relative low density of settlement drew off many potential workers. The ones who went West benefited because they could set their own course; the ones who remained East benefited because their labor was in high demand.

What implications does this have for today? Well, for six years we have had a President and a Congress intent on transforming America into a so-called “ownership society”. In essence, this means to get everyone in the stock market. The whole society would derive its spendable income from stocks and bonds, and comparatively less from wages and salaries. Here’s the rub, though. In an ownership society, either you are the owners — or you are the owned. It’s clear that the entire society cannot lead a life of investmend-supported leisure. Nor, I would argue, is it a good goal. But for half a decade, through tax policy, monetary policy, and social policy, the current Administration has tilted the scales to those who own — ridiculously so, in fact.

Is it any coincidence that, during that same half-decade, we have seen the full-fledged retreat of American democracy, liberty abandonded in a desparate though illusory grasp for security? It’s hard to respect the rights of your fellow citizens if you despise them and how they make a living.