I’m
concerned about the various condemnations of income inequality. It is
being treated by many philosophers, ideologues and even economists as
inherently wrong.
Income, and it’s evil cousin net worth, often reflect the
amount society pays for labor and other artifacts of productivity according to
the value realized. I don’t think LeBron is worth $75M/year but I can’t
shoot 3 point shots or dunk.
Some people object to doctors pulling
down $500K, even though the average debt at med school graduation runs around
$200K and many peg it closer to $300K. 12 years of college, med school,
internship and residency (more for surgeons and anyone who signs on for a
fellowship), also carries a time cost. Their malpractice insurance
premiums are much higher than those of public school teachers and sales reps.
Seeing your first paying customer at 34 is a pronounced handicap. My
point here is that some jobs pay more because few people are qualified and also
because they’re worth a lot.
The real issue is that many people simply
choose not to make the sacrifices required to earn huge amounts of money.
Independent of skills and aptitude, lots of people are content to work 40
hours, earn a respectable living and have nights and weekends free to do as
they please. Risking one’s entire nest egg to start an online book
selling business that competes with Borders and Barnes & Noble is not
everybody’s cup of tea. Some people forego all-consuming jobs so they can
care for a parent or child, enjoy a little travel/leisure or they simply want
to tend their garden. Maybe $40K is enough (maybe not in Manhattan).
Economics is the study of choices, and their consequences.
When people
choose to balance income and lifestyle, maybe that’s okay. The price of
food relative to household income is low (1). The price of gas, compared
to its 20 year average, is low (2). Borrowing costs are low.
Household debt has been trending steeply downward for the last 10 years
(3). Disparities that result in poor nutrition, inadequate medical care, lack
of basic needs or wage discrimination for any reason are another issue and are
not okay.
Perhaps
some consideration should be given to the large number of people who make less
than Warren Buffet and don’t care, or at least don’t care enough to learn how
to shoot 40% from beyond the arc or perform pediatric neurosurgery. In
the end, deprivation needs to be teased away from envy.
Inequality
does not always imply injustice.
*Anonymous is a long-term resident of Bloomington, Indiana.
So poverty is a choice, and we need no safety nets.
ReplyDeleteWell said Ms. Liberal. Not sure Mr. Anonymous meant there should be no safety nets. Maybe just him trying to explain how some of what we observe has to do with choices. Note the word"some". But I don't want to be in the middle. Hopefully he will find a way to reply.
DeletePlease direct your gentle reader to my clear statement that inadequate nutrition, medical care and basic needs are not okay. By this I mean they are entirely unacceptable.
DeleteThis where the problems begin. How should we define poverty? Should people be allowed to earn below federal poverty limits if their income meets their basic needs and their low income allows time and other benefits that work in their favor? Most poor people own at least one color tv and a cell phone. Many have a car. In the not-too-distant past, these were exorbitant luxuries. Is poverty relative to the materialism and leisurely pursuits of successive generations? If I can’t buy my kids an X Box, or Play Station do I have the legitimate right to appeal for justice?
Examining the causes of poverty, one household at a time, may provide insight into remedies for the future and for those who make excellent choices but who remain unable to meet fundamental needs.
Dear Anon/Bloomington resident and LSD. The last sentence, “Inequality does not always imply injustice,” could have been the one and only sentence in the blog. Short, simple, and rational—though many would take issue with it ‘cauze it doesn’t fit their narrative. Getting those “so inclined” folkz to accept that ‘inequality is normal and a naturally occurring phenomenon’ is an effort in futility. Here in the depths inequality reigns supreme—those “so inclined” folkz should com’n down and enjoy the daily life-challenging scrimmage between the bigger guyz and the smaller guyz. And fer the terra firma-lov’n “so inclined” folkz they can observe the same scrimmage any day on the National Geographic TV channel.
ReplyDeleteI kinda figured the Tuna would wade in on this one.
DeleteYeah, the Tuna took the yummy bait hook, line, and stinker.
DeleteDear writers and readers,
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with some professions paying more than others. Heck, I chose to become a sports agent instead of a political writer - which would have been a more admirable use of my degree from The Ernie Pyle SOJ.
However, when we speak of the wealth gap in this country, I believe it goes well beyond the difference between earnings of a grade school teacher and a 500k / year doctor. The issue with the proliferation of wealth we have is that so many of our billionaires are a) not even close to self-made b) taking advantage of our system in many ways c) not paying their fair share of taxes back into our collective coffers as they should.
Now, if I've missed the point entirely, I'm sure LSD will be happy to inform me as-such. If not, I'll offer my final thought that income inequality is more of a baby-kid-brother to the big bully that is the Wealth Gap in our country today. I believe that we must find better ways to address it going forward lest we face a revolution of the sort far beyond the one we are facing down currently.
- Yours Truly, a Bernie Sanders T-Shirt Wearing Man
There are 2,604 billionaires in the world, and 55.8% of them are self-made. That's according to the Billionaire Census published Thursday, May 9, 2019, by market research firm Wealth-X. Another 30.9% of billionaires made at least some of their wealth themselves, according to the report, while 13.3% inherited their wealth entirely. Per Forbes Magazine, October 3, 2018, “In 1984, less than half the people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; in 2018, 67% of the 400 created their own fortunes.” Your comment “a) not even close to self-made” is inaccurate. Taking advantage of “our system”—however that is defined—is available to anybody not just billionaires. Liberals avoid defining “fair share” like avoiding the coronavirus—why is that Señor JK?
DeleteYou should wash that tshirt now and then. I will let anonymous respond but my response is that while some people have gained wealth in a less than honest way, many have and I don't want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. I like a system in which the pursuit of income and wealth bring the rest of us many fantastic things. In fact while some rich are detestable I know many of them who are the main people to support and contribute to local charities. The Boys & Girls Club in Bloomington has been the recipient of millions of dollars that benefit almost exclusively low income kids and families. I believe this is multiplied all of this country. Point? There is a lot of good there. I think we can make life fair and help those who need help without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
ReplyDeleteIn sentence #2 I should have said have not.
ReplyDeleteLarry-
ReplyDeleteTo our friend and Bernie Sanders disciple, my questions are: a) does the source of one’s wealth or poverty matter so long as they were obtained according to the relevant laws and regulations of their jurisdiction? Are self-made tycoons (including lottery winners) nobler than those who earned their estate from partnership, inheritance or salary? Isn’t it the recirculation of wealth, either to philanthropic causes, capitalistic investment or self-indulgence, that defines the legitimacy of prosperity? b) if people prosper enormously by the system does fault lie with the law-abiding beneficiary or the system itself and on which the exploiter may have no influence? and c) are fair taxes those that are legally defined and paid or those that a coalition believe would be fairer, to the extent that the two differ? The top 1% pay a higher share of personal income taxes, 37%, than the bottom 90% combined, 30% (1). Should these ratios be further exaggerated to 50% and 15%?
1. https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/
As for the wealth gap, and staying loosely within the theme of macroeconomics, why is this so repugnant? Rich people do not live longer or have happier lives than those in the lower middle class and above. Their diamond encrusted Rolex tells the same (or worse) time than a teenager’s cell phone. Multiple mansions in affluent cul-de-sacs provide mostly the same floor plan as an average home or inner city apartment; bedroom, kitchen, living room, and bathroom. Having high numbers of any of these is not a big advantage when the occupant can only use one at a time. Is a pool, tennis court, home theater and several Italian sports cars enough to incite rebellion? This seems improbable at a time when electric and autonomous cars have put RollsRoyce, Ferrari and Lamborghini are on the cusp of extinction, along with the chauffeur. What can the rich buy that truly elevates their lives above the proletariat?
Before blood runs in the streets, I hope our comrades in the revolution will pause long enough to ponder the difference between starvation and other physiologic deprivations preceding the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, and the beefy financial freedom fighters we observe today.