First things first: The Occupy Wall Street protesters are largely correct. There is tremendous economic inequality in the United States (and there is tremendous economic inequality in most countries, although the inequality here is considerably greater than it is in most "developed" countries). Inequality in the United States is significantly more pronounced than it is in many developing countries, actually. Five of the 'stan countries have more income equality than the United States, for example (and if income inequality is that marked here, one has to imagine that wealth disparity is far, far greater).
To be honest, I'm far less concerned with income inequality than I am with poverty reduction for a variety of reasons, but that's not the point I'm trying to get at today, exactly. As far as income inequality itself goes, I think some of it is necessary because, let's face it, that's jut the way the world works. While you have plenty of people of one political persuasion arguing against such vast inequality (with plenty of sound arguments, if normative arguments are your cup of tea), you have plenty of people on the other side arguing against things like progressive tax systems (with plenty of the same sound, normative arguments). What one perceives as "fair", however, is ultimately subjective, and rarely economically feasible.
What I am interested in talking about is something that struck me the other day, and that is the fact that inequality, though it exists at least roughly to the degree that the Occupy Wall Street folks say it does, is absolutely NOT what has driven them into the streets en masse.
Is inequality really that much worse right now than it was, say, five years ago? It has certainly increased, but not that much. Yet, there were no mass "I am the 99%" protests five years ago. I guess some kind of "tipping point" argument could be made, but I wouldn't for one second buy it, at least not as it relates to income disparity. So what has changed?
I have been well aware of the vast disparity in wealth and income in the United States for quite some time, and I have always thought that as long as people's basic needs were being met (and the definition of "basic needs" here is somewhat nebulous) they would remain either blissfully ignorant of that inequality or, as was the case with me, not really care all that much one way or the other. As long as those who have the most economic pull here made sure that people, by and large, were content, then there would be no need to try to equalize ownership of income or wealth. And for the most part, that is the way things have been.
Let me digress slightly here just for a moment. I firmly believe that we can't ask for more than to be happy. If I'm truly happy with my life, I don't really want for anything. I also believe that most of us are more or less psychologically and emotionally healthy people, and psychologically and emotionally healthy people don't generally poke their noses over the fence to see how many toys the neighbor has before deciding whether or not to feel happy. In short, our own happiness rarely has much at all to do with our material wealth relative to those around us (much less some faceless CEO). Oh, there are plenty of exceptions to this, but I think people whose days are won and lost based on how their stacks stack up against the neighbors' are never going to be happy anyway.
Okay, I'm getting way off track here. Bottom line: we don't care that much about inequality, but we do care about being able to be paid a reasonable wage for our jobs, about being able to have a job at all, about not having our houses taken away from us, about our kids being able to go to school, about being able to pay our medical bills, and so on and so forth. Inequality could be one thousand times greater than it is right now, and if the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't have to deal (or at least worry about the potential of having to deal) with such problems, there would be very, very few people out in the streets protesting income inequality.
So what has changed? More and more (and more and more) of us are worrying about how to find a job, and if we have one, how long that job will be there. More and more of us are worrying about what will happen if we or a family member gets sick, and whether or not it will financially ruin us for life. More and more of us are worrying about where we will live if we lose our jobs or have one of those illnesses, once we can't make our mortgage payments and our house (or are cars) are foreclosed on or repossessed. It is that kind of desperation that is driving people into the streets, not the inequality issue.
These protests don't seem like they're necessarily abating. Those who have the power to influence economic policy (whether they be corporations or elected officials) would do well to keep this in mind, and at least tone down the greed and lust for power to a level that will get people back in their houses, watching TV and playing board games with their families, barbecuing on the weekends, and whatever else it is that keeps Americans happy. Because here's the secret: we really don't care that you get fabulously rich off the fruits of our labor, as long as we're not up at night worried about the future.
And while I'm not a massive fan of tipping-point arguments, I think there may one to be made here (albeit using completely arbitrary numbers). If making 500 times more than the average allows you to be obscenely rich and the status quo is maintained, but making 501 times more results in an economic situation that pisses people off to the point at which they are willing to do something about it, maybe that extra increment is not worth it in the end? Food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment