By Paul Jacob
Sunday, January
26, 2014
We’re told that “economic inequality” is on the rise . .
. by the same people who took our tax dollars to bail out some folks on Wall
Street and elsewhere, surely making more than minimum wage.
But, once one investigates the issue beyond the buncombe
level of egalitarian hysteria, one finds the reality more complicated than the
rhetoric. The biggest truth? The rich may be getting richer, but the poor
aren’t getting poorer.
First, contrary to the mind-numbingly stupid MSNBC promo
with Lawrence O’Donnell arguing that the “rich got richer every single day,”
the data shows the top income earners simply aren’t the same folks one year to
the next. In fact, a majority of super-rich “1 percenters” will fall out of
that 1 percent category.
There is still income mobility in America.
Meanwhile, some poor folks do indeed become super-rich.
Probably more important, over time, most of us move from one quintile to at
least the next step up the ladder.
What prevents widespread understanding of this?
Intellectual muddles. The difference between income and wealth often get fuzzed
up, for example. Take two high-income workers, earning the same pay: The one
who saves will wind up with much more wealth than the other who spends it all.
And rates of savings vary radically from person to person.
As does everything else.
Which makes making actual equality something of a chimera
in and of itself.
But take a step back, take a breath. Those who demand
more equality — or less inequality, depending on your focus — at least should
face the biggest, ugliest unequalizer in the room: government.
Bailouts are now an integral feature to aid some of the
rich, to prevent their losses (we’re told) from spreading “financial contagion.”
Considering the moral hazard involved, I’d say “financial
contagion” is endemic . . . on a whole different level.
And now we discover there is yet another bailout in the
offing, one written quietly and inserted into the gignormously long Obamacare legislation.
Yes, the same health insurance industry demonized by the president to pass the
bill (even though the insurance lobby was actually supporting it) is protected
from harm by yet another potential bailout.
It seems to me that enemies of inequality and enemies of
injustice could join efforts and fight for downward mobility of the rich.
Capitalism, after all, is a profit-and-loss system. Modern government has
turned it into a guaranteed profit system. And surely some of the reason that
some of the rich remain so well-off, today, is that their fortunes have been
secured by taxpayer money, with redistribution of wealth going from the
less-well-off to them. This would make for greater inequality, at the top
level. And it corrupts the standard of responsibility upon which a free society
rests.
But it’s worth extending the thought: just as there is a
downside to bailing out the “upper classes,” could there be a downside to
bailing out the poorest folk, too?
A question for the inequality obsessed: Since the War on
Poverty really set in, poverty rates have leveled off and even worsened (that
is, the numbers of the officially impoverished have grown, despite increases in
after-tax/after-subsidy incomes) — could you be missing the moral hazard that
any sort of bailout portends?
The poor may not be getting poorer, under the current
welfare state programs, but their numbers are rising, suggesting that the
ongoing bailout system disincentivizes responsibility, enticing folks into the
trap that is today’s government-managed poverty.
The alternative? Not equality of outcomes, but equality
before the law. Real economic justice, as I suggested two weeks ago in this
space, is just that, justice. Establishment of good rules, no special
privileges.
That means justice for the poor, yes, but also for the
rich, and for those in the middle. No special privileges for the well-connected
few ought be joined by none for the 99 percent . . . or the 51 percent.
In bemoaning Democratic failure and Republican success in
not extending unemployment benefits beyond 52 weeks, Washington Post columnist
Eugene Robinson relished the politics of supporting additional benefits for
millions of potential voters. He told moving stories of folks losing benefits
and facing hardships. He then asked, “Isn’t it in society’s interest to give
them a chance?”
It is, Mr. Robinson, yes it is.
A chance. A free and fair chance, but not an entitlement.
Oh, it might be nice to live in a world where everyone could have everything.
But, in the world we actually live in, everything given away by government must
first be produced by someone else.
So we are left with a choice:
A. a functional and diverse job-creating market economy, orB. a politician-centered redistribution regime.
The second option only looks good so long as you don’t
look at it very carefully. Then you notice the obvious: equality doesn’t get
served, but insiders do — at the expense of the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment