Equality: Part 3

Whenever I hear politicians or social theorists decry income inequality, I always want to ask them how they think “income equality” could be achieved. As far as I can see, the only way to accomplish such a thing would be for the government to confiscate 100% of everything that everyone earns, and then write a check for an identical amount to every citizen. Not even the most left-wing politicians would be reckless enough to advocate that publicly, so they cook up alternate schemes to accomplish the same thing without resorting to such drastic measures as cold-turkey collectivization.

Progressive taxation is their favorite ploy, mostly because it’s so popular with people in lower tax brackets, and even more popular among people who don’t pay taxes at all. (Incidentally, progressive taxation is also completely unconstitutional, since it violates the guarantee of equal protection of the law, but that’s a subject for another column.) The money thus taken from higher earners can then be distributed to lower earners and non-earners through a mind-boggling array of income transfer programs. Although these schemes have proven depressingly effective at vote buying, they have utterly failed at the goal of eradicating “income inequality.”

Differences in income persist because differences in human beings persist. Human beings are not, never have been, and never will be equal when it comes to talent, intelligence, ability, interests, ambition, drive, or even energy levels. Some people become professional basketball players; others become organic farmers. Some become kindergarten teachers; others become lawyers. Many people who could pursue high-paying careers if they chose to end up choosing careers that pay relatively little; they understand that there are trade-offs in life, and doing work they enjoy matters more to them than the higher income and higher prestige that a different career would provide. There’s nothing wrong with someone who could have been a neurosurgeon choosing to become a florist, if being a florist is what that person enjoys. Money, status, and prestige matter to some people, and not to others.

Even people working at the exact same job often have very different incomes, due to different priorities. Some people will work 80 hours a week, others will work 40 hours a week, others only 20. The person who works 80 hours could be doing so for any number of reasons. It might be from financial necessity. It might be because he just loves his job, possibly to the point of not having a life outside of work. It might be because he’s hoping for a promotion. The one who works fewer hours may do so for many reasons as well. His financial needs may be less. He might need to be home when his kids get home from school, or he may have to care for an elderly parent. Or he might simply value his leisure time over the extra money that would come from working longer hours.

My point is that differences in income are the consequence of the high degree of personal liberty and autonomy that we enjoy as Americans. I would go so far as to say that in any society that enjoys the rule of law, a market economy, and secure property rights, the more freedom individuals have, the more income inequality there will be.

I’m not denying that some people are wealthy due to sheer good luck, and some people are poor through no fault of their own. But in general, most income differences are due to choices that individuals have made. Very often those choices did not have the result that the person choosing them hoped they would have. The choice to go to college may lead to a better job than you could have gotten otherwise… or it may not. The choice to invest in stocks or real estate might improve your financial situation… or it might make it worse. Nothing is ever a sure thing. But if you don’t have the freedom to fail, neither will you have the opportunity to succeed. And even if eliminating all the risks were possible (which it is not), and even if that resulted in “equality” (which it would not), it would be a very poor substitute for the freedom to decide for yourself what you want out of life, and then pursue it.

So be extremely wary of any politician you hear blathering on about income inequality. Difference does not equal injustice, and any politician who tries to equate the two is either an idiot or a liar. Unfortunately, they know that they can score points with certain voting blocs by fanning the flames of envy and resentment, pitting one class of citizens against another, telling those with lower incomes that it’s unfair that others have more than they do, and promising to raise taxes on “the rich” and redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate.

Just remember that the politician who spouts this kind of claptrap is not interested in equality, and he couldn’t care less about justice. His only goal is to maximize his own power, and reduce you from a citizen to a subject.

Next time, I’ll venture recklessly into the minefield of gender equality, and discuss some of the ways that the pursuit of it can be hazardous to your health and happiness.