Don't worry, be happy
An interesting editorial by economist, Richard Epstein, in the LA Times. Here is the kernal of the issue:
My question is this: Why worry about the persistence of inequality in the face of such massive improvement across the entire spectrum? And why worry when, in absolute terms, the improvements are far greater for the least-fortunate classes than for the rich?Ok, before you throw flames, please note that this guy is smart. I'm talking super-freaky smart. Read: if you disagree with him (I'm talking to you, Euge), chances are you misunderstand his point or you're wrong.
...
The threat of skepticism to human progress must be rejected. In its place I would adopt what might be termed a "non-envy principle": If there are two states of the world, such that everyone in state A is better (or at least as well) off as everyone in state B, then choose world A, even if the resulting inequalities leave some people envious. Don't grouse because Bill Gates is richer than the average Microsoft employee — instead, celebrate the productive processes that continue to bring substantial benefits to all of us across the board.
posted by david burnstein at 9:50 AM
4 Comments:
I'll resist holding my breath until some minimum wager writes this sort of editorial. He doesn't know shit about the primate -- not to say the human -- psyche. As soon as a chimp sees a colleague get better food from their keeper than what he got [which is what they all always got and which is quite adequate and otherwise quite acceptable]the chimp will display much anger and pissedoffness. In short, it's the way chimps are designed, they do compare and are emotionally programmed to react to inequities. I chose the chimp because both he and humans have common ancestors -- to show how far back in evolution we can go to see whether inequities count. Whenever there aren't glaring clear and unambiguous objective standards, humans compare their outcomes, feelings, abilities, etc., to decide how good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, fair or unfair they are -- a classic survey finding is that in a community with high unemployment [those with whom he can compare himself], an long-unemployed respondent feels that his situation, life, etc. isn't too bad whereas an equally long uemployed respondent in a community with low unemployment feels life is lousy. In short, how we evaluate an outcome [eg, our income, our career, our health care, our pension, etc.], its utility or incentive value, is the result of comparing it with the outcomes of others. Enough psychology. Now I suggest again that you compare various indices of well-being such longevity, infant mortality, years of schooling, rates for various diseases, rates of suicides and mental illness, rates of child abuse, alcoholism, and the like in modern Western societies, ie, N. America, W.Europe, Scandinavia, and Japan, as a function of some measure of income/wealth disparaties -- not like that "super smart" editorialist over time between US and third world societies -- and see whether there's a relationship. Might do the same for productivity -- incentives are in the eye/mind/gut of the comparison shopper!!
While Epstein is silent on this issue, I do not think he would dispute your contention that, ceteris paribus, a society that is equal is better off than a society that is unequal. Well, maybe he would.
Anyway, I agree that equality and fairness are nice outcomes. What is not nice, however, are the redistributive schemes goverment impose to achieve equality and fairness.
Hence, I don't think the point is to compare the well being of country A, where everyone is equal, to the well being of country B, where not everyone is equal. Any joe can tell you that the effect of equality, after controlling for the policies employed to achieve equality, will probably improve well being. The point here, and I think this is Epstein's point, is that once you consider how country A got to equality, you will realize that the ends (change in well being) do not justify the means (redistribution).
here is a similar point made via analogy to a water noodle...
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/06/the_prosperity_.html
If this is the Richard A. Epstein law professor at the University of Chicago, you're right.
He's the smartest person I've ever met.
Second's Charles Murray.
Post a Comment
<< Home