![]() And a deeper understanding of these causes can inform not only one’s sense of what needs to be done but also one’s sense of whether the existing distribution of income is or is not a fair one.Ĭonsider three hypothetical societies, all of which have identical distributions of income as conventionally measured. It addresses not just the symptoms but the causes of inequality. In light of these debates, if any public consensus is to be found, it is more likely to revolve around the issue of opportunity than around the issue of equality.Ī final reason why opportunity merits our attention is that it gets at the underlying processes that produce inequality. But the argument is hard to prove and will not satisfy those who believe that inequality is the price we pay for a dynamic economy and the right of each individual to retain the benefits from his or her own labor. Many would argue that current inequalities far exceed those needed to encourage work, saving, and risk taking, and further that we need not worry about the optimal degree of inequality in a society that has clearly gone beyond that point. ![]() Inequality in rewards encourages individual effort and contributes to economic growth. Virtually no one favors a completely equal distribution of income. Another is that the current emphasis on income inequality begs the question of how much inequality is too much. Public opinion is only one reason to refocus the debate. Socialism has never taken root in American soil. This belief has deep roots in American culture and American history and is part of what distinguishes our public philosophy from that of Europe. The commitment to provide everyone with a fair chance to develop their own talents to the fullest is a central tenet of the American creed. ![]() ![]() The American public has always cared more about equal opportunity than about equal results. If there is any common ground between these two views, it probably revolves around the idea of opportunity and the measures needed to insure that it exists. The other side argues that inequality reflects differences in individual talent and effort, and as such is a spur to higher economic growth, as well as just compensation for unequal effort and skill. One side argues for a redistribution of existing incomes, through higher taxes on the wealthy and more income support for the poor. Instead, we have an increasingly sterile debate over income equality. In talking about this issue, we often invoke the phrase “equal opportunity,” but we seldom reflect on what we really mean by “opportunity,” how much of it we really have, and what we should do if it’s in short supply. So the perceived fairness of the process is critical, and the rules governing who wins and who loses matter as much as the outcomes they produce. But-and this is the important point-no one could complain that they hadn’t had an equal shot at achieving a good outcome. Although some, especially those who are risk adverse, might blanch at the prospect of losing, and might wish for a more equal set of outcomes a priori (as most famously argued by John Rawls), others might welcome the chance to do exceedingly well. Imagine a society in which incomes were as unequal as they are in the United States but where everyone had an equal chance of receiving any particular income-that is, in which the game was a completely unbiased lottery. Indeed, I would argue that one cannot judge the fairness of any particular distribution without knowing something about the rules of the game that gave rise to it. It is also the system that produces that distribution. But it is not only the distribution of income that should concern us. By 1996, they had almost 20 times as much. In 1973, the richest 5 percent of all families had 11 times as much income as the poorest one-fifth. Instead, we seem mesmerized by data on the distribution of incomes which show that incomes are less evenly distributed than they were 20 or 30 years ago. America is known as “the land of opportunity.” But whether it deserves this reputation has received too little attention.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |