This, I think, is just a first pass on some of the crazy things I hear about inequality. I hear lots of complaints about its rise, about how it's so wrong that some people are making a gazillion times more than the lowest-paid employee.
I was thinking about it a little differently, recently:
First, I have to acknowledge that it exists. And yes, it does.
Next I've made the assumption that inequality really is something we want to reduce.
From there it seems that there are two ways of tackling it: 1. Reduce the wealth of the top, 2. Increase the wealth of those at the bottom. How we choose between them depends on how we answer the question "why do we want to reduce inequality?"
I'm reasonably sure that no one is (at least consciously) interested in reducing inequality because they just want to hurt the wealthy. I believe that even the most ardent redistributionists believe that it is to help the poorest thrive.
So now, we look at our possible solutions:
Regarding #1 - Isn't that just sour grapes? I mean really, there was no inequality when we were all living in caves, drawing on pictures of bison with finger paints, but I seriously doubt that anyone would want to live there/then (were Neanderthals impoverished?). So clearly reducing the top's wealth doesn't do anything to helping the bottom.
Regarding #2 - This is really what we want to do, isn't it? We want to ensure that everyone is getting ahead. Everyone can buy more and better food, more and better medicine, entertainment, shelter, and all the other great things the world offers.
Now, I know that you're all thinking that the top doesn't need all that money, why don't we take some and give it to the bottom? It seems reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, does one really need more than three or four Ferraris?
The problem with this argument is that it is a zero-sum argument, by which I mean that there is a fixed amount of wealth in this world and we must ensure it is evenly and fairly distributed. This is patently, obviously, and demonstrably false. Remember our insolvent Neanderthals? How much wealth was in the world then? How about a thousand years later? Or at the Birth of Christ?
What about the difference in wealth between the years just before the start of the industrial revolution and the few years after it?
Our wealth is not a fixed pie, it is an ever growing pie. We need to do all the things we can to help ensure that it continues to grow. We can do this best by enabling people to belly up to the table, pick up a fork and start eating. Keeping our diners away from the table and promising to throw them scraps (no matter how big or choice) will never increase anyone's ability to participate.
Then what can we do to increase wealth at the bottom? Well, I have a few ideas:
1) Scrap the minimum wage - A minimum wage prevents people from getting to the table, it limits my ability--if I'm an unskilled worker--to get my first skills. And it encourages jobs to move overseas!
2) Minimize the number of professional licenses necessary. I mean really does the state really need to license hair-braiding? Casket selling? Interpreting sign language for the hearing impaired? There are dozens upon dozens of others, these are just some of the most egregious.
Ultimately, these are all just about getting a centralized government out of business, and allowing business to grow and prosper, and the people with it.
I was thinking about it a little differently, recently:
First, I have to acknowledge that it exists. And yes, it does.
Next I've made the assumption that inequality really is something we want to reduce.
From there it seems that there are two ways of tackling it: 1. Reduce the wealth of the top, 2. Increase the wealth of those at the bottom. How we choose between them depends on how we answer the question "why do we want to reduce inequality?"
I'm reasonably sure that no one is (at least consciously) interested in reducing inequality because they just want to hurt the wealthy. I believe that even the most ardent redistributionists believe that it is to help the poorest thrive.
So now, we look at our possible solutions:
Regarding #1 - Isn't that just sour grapes? I mean really, there was no inequality when we were all living in caves, drawing on pictures of bison with finger paints, but I seriously doubt that anyone would want to live there/then (were Neanderthals impoverished?). So clearly reducing the top's wealth doesn't do anything to helping the bottom.
Regarding #2 - This is really what we want to do, isn't it? We want to ensure that everyone is getting ahead. Everyone can buy more and better food, more and better medicine, entertainment, shelter, and all the other great things the world offers.
Now, I know that you're all thinking that the top doesn't need all that money, why don't we take some and give it to the bottom? It seems reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, does one really need more than three or four Ferraris?
The problem with this argument is that it is a zero-sum argument, by which I mean that there is a fixed amount of wealth in this world and we must ensure it is evenly and fairly distributed. This is patently, obviously, and demonstrably false. Remember our insolvent Neanderthals? How much wealth was in the world then? How about a thousand years later? Or at the Birth of Christ?
What about the difference in wealth between the years just before the start of the industrial revolution and the few years after it?
Our wealth is not a fixed pie, it is an ever growing pie. We need to do all the things we can to help ensure that it continues to grow. We can do this best by enabling people to belly up to the table, pick up a fork and start eating. Keeping our diners away from the table and promising to throw them scraps (no matter how big or choice) will never increase anyone's ability to participate.
Then what can we do to increase wealth at the bottom? Well, I have a few ideas:
1) Scrap the minimum wage - A minimum wage prevents people from getting to the table, it limits my ability--if I'm an unskilled worker--to get my first skills. And it encourages jobs to move overseas!
2) Minimize the number of professional licenses necessary. I mean really does the state really need to license hair-braiding? Casket selling? Interpreting sign language for the hearing impaired? There are dozens upon dozens of others, these are just some of the most egregious.
Ultimately, these are all just about getting a centralized government out of business, and allowing business to grow and prosper, and the people with it.
