Everywhere you turn, people are talking about income inequality.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has turned into a one-trick pony, fretting about “the rise of a narrow oligarchy” twice each week.
CNN’s Lou Dobbs, whose daily program averages nearly one million viewers, spends each night grumbling about the “war on the middle class.” His culprit? The “excesses of capitalism.”
In the 2006 elections, the candidates who complained loudest about income inequality were swept into victory, as long as they blamed illegal immigration, free trade, globalization, off-shoring, or other examples of “corporate greed” for America’s woes.
Even President Bush has joined the chorus. In a speech last month, he worried about “our dynamic economy … leaving working people behind,” and proclaimed that “income inequality is real, [and has] been rising for more than 25 years.”
The cited statistics are always the same. Over the last 25 years, inflation-adjusted wages grew by 34 percent for those whose jobs paid them at the 90th percentile of earnings, while those in the top one percent saw their wages rise even faster.
According to the census bureau, the nation’s median household income fell 5.9 percent between 2000 and 2005, from $49,133 to $46,242. Health care costs have risen rapidly over the past decade, far outpacing inflation.
When newly-elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb graduated from college, as he told the nation in the Democratic response to the State of the Union, “the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did. Today, it’s 400 times.”
So sure, the rich are getting richer. And they’re gaining wealth quite rapidly.
But so is everyone else.
As measured by the census bureau, those in the lowest quintile saw their inflation-adjusted wages increase by 14 percent over the last 25 years. Those in the middle quintile saw their wages rise by 20 percent.
Meanwhile, according to the bureau of labor statistics, the prices of most consumer products have plummeted. In just the last five years, the cost of a television set has dropped by 55.4 percent. Toys are 25.8 percent less expensive than they were five years ago, and appliances are down 6.5 percent. Nearly 70 percent of America’s families own their homes, and about half of all families have money in the stock market.
And on a broad range of consumer goods, what used to be considered a luxury is now considered a necessity.
According to a new survey from the Pew Research Center, nine in 10 Americans can’t live without a car. Seven in 10 can’t live without air conditioning and a microwave. Well more than half of all U.S. citizens can’t live without a television and a home computer. And just about half of the U.S. populace simply couldn’t survive without a cell phone.
Further, as defined for most of human history, poverty in America hardly even exists. Whereas poverty has always been defined by a scarcity of things like food, shelter, and other essentials, few Americans go without these things today.
Only 35 years ago, undernourishment was still a serious issue for America’s poor. These days, more than 25 percent of those Americans living below the poverty level are obese.
Quite simply, America’s prosperity continues to grow astronomically.
So if absolute standards are increasing for everyone, why is income inequality a problem?
The answer, according to the Krugmans of the world, is fairness. Is it really fair, they would ask, for the CEO of Home Depot to take home a $200 million severance package while the company’s cashiers take home $8 an hour?
Unfortunately for Krugman and his allies, such a question is irrelevant. Because, as Ben Bernanke recently explained, “without the possibility of unequal outcomes tied to differences in effort and skill, the economic incentive for productive behavior would be eliminated.”
Theoretically, as long as America’s wage gap creates the right incentives, the nation’s poorest citizens will learn that to get ahead, they have to adopt the behaviors of those who have made it to the top. This includes getting an education, finding a spouse, not breaking the law, and managing money responsibly.
Indeed, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a college graduate will earn an average of $51,000 each year for his career. A high school diploma, on the other hand, yields just $28,000 grand a year. Over a 45-year working career, that translates to more than $1 million.
America strives to provide equality of economic opportunity. Not of economic outcomes. As long as the rules of the game are fair to start with — as long as everyone has an equal chance of doing as well as possible — then there’s nothing inherently unfair about people ending up with different outcomes.
Inequality is a simple side effect of that social contract. And in a country where three in ten individuals say they can’t live without high-speed Internet, we shouldn’t be too concerned.
David White, a writer in Washington, is a regular columnist for Brainwash.
6 Comments - add your own
Seke Ballard — February 23, 2007 at 12:24 am
Ok,
Overall it was a good read, but I think you made some logical jumps that aren’t very credible.
1) The Krugmans among us, I don’t believe, would contradict Mr. Bernanke’s comments. They’re not suggesting a communist state. What they’re suggesting, instead, is that it would be just as motivating to have a $150 million severance package for the top execs while at the same time allocating the remaining $50 million to increasing the cashiers’ hourly wage by a few cents or maybe even a whole dollar.
2) I agree with your stance on economic outcomes v. economic opportunity, but to assume that in america there is equality in economic opportunity isn’t consistent with reality. To mention one, those born into poverty are exposed to a litany of problems and obstacles that wouldn’t exist for someone born in the middle/upper classes. Unless you believe that children born into poverty are inherently less intelligent, any study on high-school graduation and achievement rates among poor and wealthier students would prove this point. Thus, the Krugmans aren’t that far off target.
glenn — February 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Most families post WWII were not middle-class, but struggling working families that fought through the depression.
Their opportunites were far less than today. One example is higher education for women, which was not the norm in those days. Those families worked hard and didn’t expect handouts from the government. They wanted to earn self-respect and to acheive the American dream.
America is the land of the free not the free-ride. You have the right to own a Rolls Royce and the right to starve to death.
A company’s sole purpose is to maximize profits and do that the most cost effective way possible. Unskilled labor will always make less money than skilled labor. The escape from that cycle is to gain a skill in higher demand. With internet classes, night schools, technical schools and so many other options available, there are ways to change your skill level.
Why are many immigrants that come to this country, that can’t even speak the language, able to succeed and even prosper? How are they able to do it when a second, third or fourth generation American can’t?
Immigrants work hard. They don’t see challenges as obsticals. Perhaps they’re more disiplined, but more likely they understand the value of what they’re fighting for.
Top executives get big bucks because they drive the business. They have the vision for the company and how it will increase profits. If they can’t, the business either fails or they’re fired. If they’re smart enough to negotiate a package for compensation due to firing, someone had to approve it. That company wanted that person badly enough to give it. No one was held hostage here, it was agreed upon.
It’s not the governments job to make sure your life is fair or equal to anyone else’s. It’s the goverments job to make sure you’re free, you have rights, and you’re protected.
Seems like the rest is up to you.
Anonymous — May 17, 2007 at 2:08 pm
resourcefulness:hoisted evaporate ringingly!bombing!punctures recycles bolstered
Anonymous — May 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm
underloaded internalize variation designing finger cornered
Anonymous — May 28, 2007 at 10:33 am
commission apostrophe,tapers Mozart.implanting southbound?bid thaw
Anonymous — May 28, 2007 at 10:33 am
commission apostrophe,tapers Mozart.implanting southbound?bid thaw