« Health08.org | Main | Delta Dental's Terrible Coverage »
July 12, 2007
Positional Inequality Among the Young and Carefree
I agree with Will that this Onion article is sort of hilariously trenchant. But given his past commentaries on positional inequality (which often seem overly impressed with the idea that otherwise pathetic people can be really respected in Everquest), I'd like to see him actually examine his own commentary a bit more. Will says:
Income is far from the only dimension of satisfying status. And don’t miss the larger lesson: Braxton’s ability live a deeply engaging, self-directed, creative, relatively low-income lifestyle is a side-effect of overall abundance. He is, in effect, free-riding off the miserable productivity of his co-workers and people like them. Liberal arts degrees, obscure Russian poets, and vanity bands are for rich people. Being rich and personally having a large income are completely different things.
Those are very good points. They're also for very young people. Braxton's life is essentially defined by an absence of responsibilities, dangers, or economic ties. He's young and healthy, single (but hanging out with an awesome girl!), doesn't own a home, doesn't appear to have college debt, etc. Income doesn't define his status because, at the moment, he doesn't much need income. This will change. Quickly. And then income will define his status -- and not just in an envious manner. Income will define whether his kid gets to go to a good school, and whether his family is safe from medical emergencies, and whether his clothing makes him look suitable for promotion. The ability to seek fulfillment in other realms will not vanish as he ages, but his capacity to eschew material concerns and forsake financial security will.
This idea that the left should stop worrying so much about income inequality and positional concerns because, like, money isn't everything, man, is a very odd one, and only works in conversations between and about people who don't actually need much in the way of income. That's not the case for most of the country, and when they worry about income as a marker of status, it's because that connection has tangible impacts on their lives and livelihoods, as Robert Frank persuasively argues in his new book Falling Behind. It's not because they're insufficiently inventive about alternative arenas of accomplishment, and don't realize that they could become hugely respected on a World War II historical fiction message board. That's not a subsititute. To most people, money matters. A lot. Sometimes in absolute terms, sometimes in positional terms. Really good taste in vanity bands rarely pays the mortgage.
July 12, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
How can I get into the parity thing if my cares are material? If I'm a have-not, and having is so important, why stop at parity? (A problem often observed in revolutions.)
Take care of the worst off, provide opportunity for people to pursue the ends that are important to them - those seem like more progressive goals to me than a mindless focus on parity. They are also less likely to have the bad consequences (or where the consequences are shared the intensity is reduced) that enforced parity brings.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 12, 2007 12:26:18 PM
Slick, the focus on parity is only mindless if you're one of the "haves", which you clearly are.
If people don't want to stop at parity, that's not because of self interest. People who just got on top because of violence don't keep pushing because they want more, they do it to punish the people who oppressed them. Logically, if you gained control violently because other people had too much, you know the risks of having too much yourself. Yet, human logic is overridden by human emotion. Centuries of rage and anger, of rapacious lords and back breaking taxes, lead to the results you get in revolutions, not class envy as you seem to suggest.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 12, 2007 12:56:51 PM
I don't read much Will, so I may be misunderstanding Ezra's point, but it seems to me that the things he's identified as income-critical are precisely the things that modern progressives want to take away from income-dependence: medical care and schooling. Obviously, a mortgage is a mortgage, but better urban planning and transportation spending broaden where a given housing dollar is valuable. Better education policy should reduce the income-dependence of public school quality, and there are lots of plans to ameliorate skyricketing college costs. And of course I don't need to tell Ezra about the myriad benefits of gov't-run, universal health care.
Basically, the progressive agenda is to allow more people, from a broader demographic, live like Braxton. I know the post-WW2 era was a unique economic moment, but never forget that the high-water mark of American industry was in some ways defined by steel- and autoworkers learning to play golf and buying boats for themselves. It was sometimes absurdly aspirational, but, fundamentally, it was about earning everything you needed in 40 hours a week, with paid vacation and plenty of time to spend on other interests.
Posted by: JRoth | Jul 12, 2007 1:01:40 PM
Aw, c'mon now- a lot of people are "insufficiently inventive about alternate means" and that's why they think they need more money than they actually do.
A lot of people have a big house in the burbs and drive a big car to work when they would be just as happy with a small place in town and a bicycle if they would just loosen up a little.
In fact, your short list in the next-to-last paragraph kinda says it all. The parental influence and home environment are way more important than getting into the right school. No amount of money will make your family safe from a medical emergency if your number is up. And having enough money to buy a good suit? How does that get on the list of "Things I must do with my life"?
What you're really saying is that the further you go down the primrose path, the bigger the monetary towtruck you need to pull you out of the quicksand.
The real point of income parity is to reduce the chances that the wrong people will get too much money and "lead" our country off a cliff- you know, people like George Bush and Dick Cheney. It's kinda like voting- you never get what you vote for, but what we get is better, over the long run, than if we'd never voted. Even stranger, every time you add a class previously thought of as incompetent to vote, the outcomes are eventually improved.
Go figure.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 12, 2007 1:11:43 PM
That's not the case for most of the country, and when they worry about income as a marker of status, it's because that connection has tangible impacts on their lives and livelihoods, as Robert Frank persuasively argues in his new book Falling Behind.
The magnitude of their income tends to have a far greater tangible impact on their lives and livelihood than the level of income inequality. That's why the focus should be on reducing poverty and increasing overall economic growth instead of on limiting inequality.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 12, 2007 1:36:51 PM
JRoth's comments seem on target to me. Those are things government can do and is pretty good at doing. Focus on quality of life, not parity.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 12, 2007 1:40:46 PM
A lot of people have a big house in the burbs and drive a big car to work when they would be just as happy with a small place in town and a bicycle if they would just loosen up a little.
Right. The average American family has just over 2 children. Remind me again how much a three-bedroom apartment costs a major metropolitan area?
City living is not cheaper by any means. You pay more for less. Whatever you save on a car is repaid several times over in rent.
You prefer urban living for what amounts to aesthetic reasons. Don't try to pretend that it's anything more than that.
In fact, your short list in the next-to-last paragraph kinda says it all. The parental influence and home environment are way more important than getting into the right school.
Yet, very few affluent people decide to send their kids to Switchblade High in the inner city. Funny, that. I wonder if there's a reason why?
Hint: When people talk about good schools, part of what they mean is schools that are physically safe for their kids. That is a fairly basic standard and one that every public school in the country should meet. But a shocking number of them - mostly located in the urban regionss that you love so much - fail to do so.
No amount of money will make your family safe from a medical emergency if your number is up.
Don't be fucking dense. Of course no amount of money can guarantee perfect health outcomes. But it makes a hell of a lot of difference on the margins.
And having enough money to buy a good suit? How does that get on the list of "Things I must do with my life"?
Ideally, no one would have to wear an ill-designed garment such as a business suit under any circumstances. In our culture, however, sartorial acumen is often valued over actual performance. In many workplaces, someone who doesn't dress well will not get a promotion no matter how good he actually is.
Posted by: Josh G. | Jul 12, 2007 1:41:23 PM
Why is it necessary to qualify band with "vanity?" Is there some kind of band that doesn't in any way serve the vanity of its members? Is there a genre of selfless-oblivion bands?
Posted by: Rich C | Jul 12, 2007 1:42:00 PM
Another thing about Ty Braxton is he doesn't actually exist.
Posted by: Bob O | Jul 12, 2007 1:52:00 PM
Don't forget Robert Frank's greatest insight, in Winner Take All Society: unless you can afford a home in a wealthy neighborhood, your children are fucked, because, education being funded by property taxes, they'll be forced into shitty schools - and will never get to go to Wesleyan. Braxton's well-being will be purchased at the expense of his children's. No wonder libertarians identify with him.
Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Jul 12, 2007 1:57:23 PM
"Don't forget Robert Frank's greatest insight, in Winner Take All Society: unless you can afford a home in a wealthy neighborhood, your children are fucked, because, education being funded by property taxes, they'll be forced into shitty schools - and will never get to go to Wesleyan."
I suppose we should ignore the fact that most Americans now live in states where school funding is distributed at the state level and this isn't a concern? This is an outdated 1970s talking point for much of the country.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Jul 12, 2007 2:19:00 PM
Conversely, with decent universal medical care and education, we would ultimately have a much healthier economy because people would be free to live low-income lives if they chose to. A society where people can't live simply without exposing themselves and their families to a rsik of debt peonage ought to be unsustainable.
Posted by: paul | Jul 12, 2007 2:22:41 PM
I think this education debate is getting off the topic of personal income parity and arguing about libertarian straw men. I'm not a libertarian. I'm pro-"big government" - there are a lot of services and works that government is especially well suited to - especially big ones like public education and health.
To the extent people bring up more pertinent issues like education and health care: aren't those more important than an enforced income parity? What is good about forced income parity? Someone ought to defend it, if it can be defended.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 12, 2007 2:31:26 PM
Our poor people are the RICHEST poor people in the world, with cars, cell phones, and air jordan sneakers.
Lets take a close look at New Orleans. There are millions of dollars in reconstruction efforts to be done there, and nobody would be a in better position to do it than the "poor dispossessed" people of that city.
But when you actually go down there, what you find are a bunch of lazy motherfuckers who would rather drink liquor all day on their stoops and collect govt welfare checks than actually work for a living.
Thats why illegal aliens are flooding to the city, because they are willing to do the hard work that the "natives" would never consider doing because they are pathetic miserable scumbags.
Nagin once claimed that New Orleans would always be a "chocolate city" and that he didnt want "mexicans running us out." But thats exactly whats going to happen, because the people of that city are lazy assholes who do nothing all day long except spend their govt welfare checks on liquor and drugs.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 12, 2007 2:38:41 PM
To the extent people bring up more pertinent issues like education and health care: aren't those more important than an enforced income parity? What is good about forced income parity? Someone ought to defend it, if it can be defended.
I do not see anyone arguing for perfect parity of outcomes. Some modest level of inequality is probably inevitable, and may even be necessary or desirable to reward hard and/or smart work. But what we have right now goes far beyond this. Was there really less incentive to work hard when CEOs made "only" 30 times what low-level employees did, rather than 300 times?
The real question is whether we should be aiming for something closer to Scandinavian levels of inequality, rather than the far higher American levels.
As for why inequality is bad, there are two reasons. One is the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. An extra million dollars in bonuses for a CEO provides far less aggregate happiness that that same million would provide if it were split up and appended to the salaries of 20 working families.
Secondly, great inequality corrupts the political system. Money is used to buy power, then the power is used to get even more money - a vicious circle that is leading America down the path towards the Third World. Most European countries have less inequality and fewer legislative scandals surrounding the campaign finance process. I don't think these two facts are unconnected.
Posted by: Josh G. | Jul 12, 2007 2:41:33 PM
Another thing about Ty Braxton is he doesn't actually exist.
Posted by: Bob O
Seriously. It's funny to debate the lifestyle and its larger ramifications of a fictional character. This is not to say there's no point talking about fiction, of course, just about drawing conclusions about reality based on it. How many people are actually in Braxton's position? Single and childless people with liberal arts educations, no great interest in anything that requires further education, and no significant debt? I couldn't figure out what this Will Wilkinson person was trying to say in the two linked posts, but whatever it was, it only applies to about 1.3 percent of Americans, if that.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jul 12, 2007 2:41:35 PM
Nagin once claimed that New Orleans would always be a "chocolate city" and that he didnt want "mexicans running us out." But thats exactly whats going to happen, because the people of that city are lazy assholes who do nothing all day long except spend their govt welfare checks on liquor and drugs.
Posted by: joe blow
Can we call this racist? I need one of the reactionaries around here to give me permission, it's so hard to tell these days. I don't even see what it has to do with what people are talking about here, but I guess it's unfair to complain about that, since it seems as common as speeding on the interstate.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jul 12, 2007 2:46:08 PM
Josh G: You make excelent points.
I also really liked Paul's comment above.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 12, 2007 3:12:18 PM
Cyrus, yes, and we should. If there isn't any admin attempt to censor such garbage I suggest commenters here take up completely ignoring joe blow and his ilk.
Posted by: eriks | Jul 12, 2007 3:14:11 PM
The real question is whether we should be aiming for something closer to Scandinavian levels of inequality, rather than the far higher American levels.
Well, that's one question. My answer is no, we should not.
As for why inequality is bad, there are two reasons. One is the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. An extra million dollars in bonuses for a CEO provides far less aggregate happiness that that same million would provide if it were split up and appended to the salaries of 20 working families.
By that hypothesis, the least-bad level of inequality would be zero--everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth. I doubt you really believe that, which suggests there's something seriously wrong with your hypothesis. There are other considerations that outweigh concerns about differential utility.
Secondly, great inequality corrupts the political system.
How "great" does inequality have to become before it corrupts the political system? Is our current level above that threshold? Below it? Right at the threshold? How do you make that determination?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 12, 2007 3:36:23 PM
It's true that income isn't the most important determinant of status and economic well-being for people who have personal rules that make that work. And, as Will points out in his response to Ezra, that can apply to older folks and families. However, for most people income is a good indicator of those things, and income inequality is therefore a useful measure in relation to matters of economic justice and redistribution. Other measures, such as increase of income and income relative to some kinds of economic benchmarks (college tuition, housing, etc.) matter too. It's a little hard to tell how much Ezra and Will disagree about this.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 12, 2007 4:07:50 PM
I don't know where Sebastian Holsclaw lives, but where I live the funding of K-12 is not the same for all districts even though funding is done through the state. I don't recall the exact number but much of the local tax money stays local and then the portion that goes to the state is used to ensure that each district has a state decided minimum. Thus, the richer areas stil have considerably more money than the poorer areas, but every area can provide an adequate level of schooling.
Posted by: BillCross | Jul 12, 2007 5:23:07 PM
As for why inequality is bad, there are two reasons. One is the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. An extra million dollars in bonuses for a CEO provides far less aggregate happiness that that same million would provide if it were split up and appended to the salaries of 20 working families.
By that hypothesis, the least-bad level of inequality would be zero--everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth. I doubt you really believe that, which suggests there's something seriously wrong with your hypothesis. There are other considerations that outweigh concerns about differential utility.
There you go again with that all-or-nothing thinking. I specifically stated that mild inequality was probably inevitable, and if it stems from the proper causes it may even be beneficial to society. The question is whether we need the gross levels of inequality seen today. Empirically, I think it is clear that the answer is no. CEO compensation relative to the rest of the workforce was much lower in the 1950s than it is now. It is much lower in many other First World nations today than it is in the United States. Empirically, we know that paying CEOs only 30 times the average worker (instead of 300 times as much) does not cause any serious detriment to the economy as a whole.
Secondly, great inequality corrupts the political system.
How "great" does inequality have to become before it corrupts the political system? Is our current level above that threshold? Below it? Right at the threshold? How do you make that determination?
We determine it empirically, like almost anything else in politics.
You want hard-and-fast rules. Sorry to break it to you, but there aren't any. Never have been, never will be.
I'm guessing you're either a naive kid or an engineer with Asperger's syndrome.
Posted by: Josh G. | Jul 12, 2007 9:03:18 PM
Shorter Jroth: Those damned blue collar workers need to learn their place.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 12, 2007 9:03:44 PM
Bottom line, if you aren't interested in diminishing inequality you're really not a lefty. Wanting abortions and gay rights are really side issues that may or may not indicate whether someone is on the left or right. The real issue, historically, is whether you favor people being allowed to entrench their power and money, or whether you think people should have a equality of opportunity.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 12, 2007 9:05:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
