Jagdeo is skirting the issue

Dec 29, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- The greatest challenge facing Guyana is not about exploiting its immense wealth, but in the baffling inability to translate that wealth into a standard of living worthy of its citizens. In a country now heralded as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, with a per capita GDP that has more than tripled in recent years, the question of a living wage ought to be a moral imperative rather than a fiscal conundrum. Yet here we are, debating whether the criteria of comparability should trump liveability—a living wage—as though these concepts exist in opposition rather than in harmony.

This issue surfaced because of Denis Chabrol’s simple yet searing question to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, at last Friday’s press conference. Chabrol’s question is demonstrative of the growing frustration of a populace caught in the crosshairs of economic disparity. Chabrol asked “What is the criterion used to determine the minimum wage?”

Instead of a straight answer that one expects from a man who likes to boast about the PPP/C government’s ability at planning, the question placed Jagdeo in a kerfuffle. Jagdeo’s response oscillated between the principles of comparability and sustainability.

In terms of comparability, Jagdeo extolled the public sector’s minimum wage as superior to its private-sector counterpart. This was as if to suggest that relative advantage somehow compensates for absolute inadequacy.

He then invoked sustainability. But this is a cloak often used to obscure the unwillingness to do better.

Let us begin by dismantling the comparability argument. Comparability, in its essence, is a measure of parity—ensuring that wages in one sector align reasonably with those in another. In this case, Jagdeo was comparing entry level wages in the public sector to that of the private sector. But in a society where the cost of living is hurting workers, comparability without liveability is an empty metric.

What use is it to compare poverty with marginally less poverty? The minimum wage must be grounded in what it takes for a human being to live with dignity, not in how it stacks up against other inadequate benchmarks. When it is estimated that, as posited to Jagdeo, a mother requires at least $140,000 monthly to survive, then a minimum wage below that threshold is not merely inadequate; it is an affront to decency.

The debate over comparability versus liveability is a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive but inherently interconnected. A living wage ensures that comparability has meaning, that benchmarks are rooted in reality rather than rhetoric. It affirms that in a land of newfound plenty, no one should have to struggle for the basics of life.

The argument for sustainability, while seemingly prudent, is equally flawed when wielded as a justification for not paying a liveable minimum wage. Certainly, governments must ensure that wage bills are sustainable. But sustainability cannot be the euphemism for austerity, especially in an economy awash with oil revenues. The notion that paying a living wage would lead to an unsustainable public sector wage bill conveniently ignores the avenues available for fiscal prudence and reallocation. How many sinecure appointments—positions created not for necessity but for patronage—inflate the wage bill unnecessarily? How much public wealth is siphoned off through corruption, wastage, and extravagance, all while the working class is told that higher wages are unsustainable.

A smaller, more efficient public service—one that prioritizes competence over cronyism—would not only reduce costs but also enhance productivity. Eliminating unnecessary positions and curbing wasteful expenditure would free up resources to invest in what truly matters: the well-being of the citizenry. The oil wealth that now flows through the coffers of Guyana provides a rare and unprecedented opportunity to correct historical injustices and set a new standard for economic equity. To imply that the resources do not exist for a living wage is to insult the intelligence of a population keenly aware of the billions being generated in their name.

When a government fails to ensure that its citizens can afford the basic necessities of life, it abdicates its most fundamental responsibility. The disparity between Guyana’s economic growth and its wage policies is a stark reminder that prosperity on paper does not equate to prosperity in practice. How does one justify an oil-rich country, celebrated globally for its rapid economic ascension, still grappling with the indignity of an unliveable minimum wage?

Paying a living wage is not merely an economic decision; it is a declaration of intent, a statement about the kind of society we aspire to build. It is about acknowledging that the true measure of a nation’s success is not its GDP but in the well-being of its people.

Critics may argue that raising the minimum wage could deter private sector investment or inflate prices, but these fears are often overstated. The government is boasting about the billions it pumps into the economy and its ability to use monetary policy to contain inflation.

A well-implemented living wage policy can stimulate economic activity by increasing the purchasing power of workers. Higher wages lead to greater consumer spending, which in turn drives business growth and job creation.

The challenge, then, is not one of feasibility but of will. It requires a government bold enough to confront entrenched interests. And it calls for a citizenry unwilling to accept half-measures and determined to hold their leaders accountable.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of this newspaper.)

(Jagdeo is skirting the issue)

---

• economic disparity, Jagdeo is skirting the issue, Peeping Tom, PPP/C governments, private-sector counterpart, public sector’s minimum wage

---