I think you are absolutely right on the emotional aspect of the inequality debate. We do judge ourselves by comparison with others. But should emotion be the basis for policy? If a person is suffering objectively (as opposed to subjectively), is there not a stronger case for government assistance? To put the matter perhaps too bluntly, is envy a sound basis for mobilizing the power of government? There's always a tradeoff: the attention we devote to bringing John D. Rockefeller down might better be spent lifting John Q. Public up.
On the other hand, in a democracy, people are going to vote their emotions, whether that's a good idea or not. Maybe we should just get used to it.
I feel that the two strategies presented to the president would perform to increase so either would be fine. However, I feel perhaps it's not inequality that is the root issue as much as the want for which you do not have. Our culture puts emphasis on material things which we as individuals may or may not hold. Thus those who have what we have not we view that our lives are not equal. But what is true equality? It almost feels like a mathematical principle of solving algebraic equations. Do to one side what you do to the other. But what if doing so would create waste or force something not needed? We solved for the unknown or inequality in principle, but what about practical?
Prof. Brands--Thanks for giving a frame for this issue that encourages rather than shuts off further discussion. (I also appreciate the thoughts of the other commentators.) I would go further with your suggestion above. There have been lots of psychological studies, and some in economics (Robert Frank, etc.), that have highlighted the fact that we evaluate our relative well-being comparatively. Competition for status within our social groups--and for all the varied benefits that came with high status--existed long before humans developed money, or even other stored-up forms of wealth. Felt attacks on status were treated as seriously as bodily threats. And it appears that for most of history we evaluated our success by local comparison; to the guy with two chickens to our one, or the fellow employee with the higher raise rather than the plutocrats who ran the company. For a long time understood if not always accepted class divisions rationalized failures to see the imbalance. But now calcified class distinctions are no longer deemed "the ways things are," and the egregious excesses of the filthy rich are publicized--even celebrated--daily. It's not just money, [All of this assumes a basic level of life-sustaining income.] it's the defeat of seeing how far down the totem pole I am--and that everybody else knows too. The cognitive glitch of discounting the future appears wired in--5% per year is pretty good with compound interest--but it seems to me that changed social values and cultural outlooks have made rational reflection on well-being all the harder.
Capitalism is amoral. In and of itself it is neither good nor bad. Morality comes from other sources. Even Adam Smith recognized this. Theory of Moral Sentiments was meant as a companion to Wealth of Nations. Saying that a person should pay their employees more is a moral issue and should be treated as such. We should also remember that it often takes great wealth investments to create new technologies and other things that improve people's lives. It also takes great wealth to make changes in the world. Politicians are blown by the wind here and there. Our two major political parties can't even agree that we have a potential environmental crisis on our hands. Jeff Bezos simply founds a $10 billion foundation to combat climate change. Politicians hold their fingers to the wind then bloviate about how to fix the "homeless problem." Bezos gives $100 million away to organizations that are actually doing the work of caring for the homeless. Maybe we should spend less time looking at a person's net worth and focusing more on what they do with it.
That's a good point about Adam Smith, who was at least as interested in morality as in wealth creation. And I like what you say about focusing on what people do with their money. I'd broaden it to resources and talents generally: it's not what talents you have - that's largely the luck of your genes - but what you do with them that matters.
I quite enjoyed this piece, Bill. As a self-interested American, I would choose the latter option (which would help reimburse me for the 10% tithe that I donate to my church), because it benefits me the most. And on the flip side, everyone else benefits as well, albeit unequally. Personally, I see no problem with Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk having a net worth of upwards of $200 billion. For the Twitter trolls (including politicians. Ex. Robert Reich) who complain about Bezos all day long, I'm pretty confident that most of them purchase items on Amazon. I see no problem with a man increasing his wealth with an innovative business model that offers premiere services, as well as providing employment to ~800K people. I don't see my life as a wealth competition against others. I don't want to be equal to everyone else; my engineer friends provide a different kind of service than I do as a secondary history & gov't teacher, and we all should be compensated proportionally to the work/service which we render.
I would go with the latter option. It raises the minimum threshold for which people’s lives could improve economically. I’m reminded of the quote from former US senator Paul Wellstone, “We all do better when we all do better.”
I believe that inequality is an inevitable consequence of a free capitalist society and I wholeheartedly believe that quote I posted above.
Thanks for the comment, Fate. You've got American history on your side. As much as politicians have loved to bash the rich, from John Jacob Astor to Jeff Bezos, American voters have never supported serious wealth-redistribution schemes. Many of them expected themselves or their kids to get rich(er) one day, and didn't want to spoil the success.
I think you are absolutely right on the emotional aspect of the inequality debate. We do judge ourselves by comparison with others. But should emotion be the basis for policy? If a person is suffering objectively (as opposed to subjectively), is there not a stronger case for government assistance? To put the matter perhaps too bluntly, is envy a sound basis for mobilizing the power of government? There's always a tradeoff: the attention we devote to bringing John D. Rockefeller down might better be spent lifting John Q. Public up.
On the other hand, in a democracy, people are going to vote their emotions, whether that's a good idea or not. Maybe we should just get used to it.
I feel that the two strategies presented to the president would perform to increase so either would be fine. However, I feel perhaps it's not inequality that is the root issue as much as the want for which you do not have. Our culture puts emphasis on material things which we as individuals may or may not hold. Thus those who have what we have not we view that our lives are not equal. But what is true equality? It almost feels like a mathematical principle of solving algebraic equations. Do to one side what you do to the other. But what if doing so would create waste or force something not needed? We solved for the unknown or inequality in principle, but what about practical?
Ah, yes - wanting what we don't have. And that others do have. I agree that that's at the bottom of a lot of the calls for equality.
Prof. Brands--Thanks for giving a frame for this issue that encourages rather than shuts off further discussion. (I also appreciate the thoughts of the other commentators.) I would go further with your suggestion above. There have been lots of psychological studies, and some in economics (Robert Frank, etc.), that have highlighted the fact that we evaluate our relative well-being comparatively. Competition for status within our social groups--and for all the varied benefits that came with high status--existed long before humans developed money, or even other stored-up forms of wealth. Felt attacks on status were treated as seriously as bodily threats. And it appears that for most of history we evaluated our success by local comparison; to the guy with two chickens to our one, or the fellow employee with the higher raise rather than the plutocrats who ran the company. For a long time understood if not always accepted class divisions rationalized failures to see the imbalance. But now calcified class distinctions are no longer deemed "the ways things are," and the egregious excesses of the filthy rich are publicized--even celebrated--daily. It's not just money, [All of this assumes a basic level of life-sustaining income.] it's the defeat of seeing how far down the totem pole I am--and that everybody else knows too. The cognitive glitch of discounting the future appears wired in--5% per year is pretty good with compound interest--but it seems to me that changed social values and cultural outlooks have made rational reflection on well-being all the harder.
Capitalism is amoral. In and of itself it is neither good nor bad. Morality comes from other sources. Even Adam Smith recognized this. Theory of Moral Sentiments was meant as a companion to Wealth of Nations. Saying that a person should pay their employees more is a moral issue and should be treated as such. We should also remember that it often takes great wealth investments to create new technologies and other things that improve people's lives. It also takes great wealth to make changes in the world. Politicians are blown by the wind here and there. Our two major political parties can't even agree that we have a potential environmental crisis on our hands. Jeff Bezos simply founds a $10 billion foundation to combat climate change. Politicians hold their fingers to the wind then bloviate about how to fix the "homeless problem." Bezos gives $100 million away to organizations that are actually doing the work of caring for the homeless. Maybe we should spend less time looking at a person's net worth and focusing more on what they do with it.
That's a good point about Adam Smith, who was at least as interested in morality as in wealth creation. And I like what you say about focusing on what people do with their money. I'd broaden it to resources and talents generally: it's not what talents you have - that's largely the luck of your genes - but what you do with them that matters.
I quite enjoyed this piece, Bill. As a self-interested American, I would choose the latter option (which would help reimburse me for the 10% tithe that I donate to my church), because it benefits me the most. And on the flip side, everyone else benefits as well, albeit unequally. Personally, I see no problem with Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk having a net worth of upwards of $200 billion. For the Twitter trolls (including politicians. Ex. Robert Reich) who complain about Bezos all day long, I'm pretty confident that most of them purchase items on Amazon. I see no problem with a man increasing his wealth with an innovative business model that offers premiere services, as well as providing employment to ~800K people. I don't see my life as a wealth competition against others. I don't want to be equal to everyone else; my engineer friends provide a different kind of service than I do as a secondary history & gov't teacher, and we all should be compensated proportionally to the work/service which we render.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Jake. Your sentiment seems squarely in the mainstream of American history on the subject.
Interesting piece professor.
I would go with the latter option. It raises the minimum threshold for which people’s lives could improve economically. I’m reminded of the quote from former US senator Paul Wellstone, “We all do better when we all do better.”
I believe that inequality is an inevitable consequence of a free capitalist society and I wholeheartedly believe that quote I posted above.
Thanks for the comment, Fate. You've got American history on your side. As much as politicians have loved to bash the rich, from John Jacob Astor to Jeff Bezos, American voters have never supported serious wealth-redistribution schemes. Many of them expected themselves or their kids to get rich(er) one day, and didn't want to spoil the success.