Thursday, September 18, 2008
Schweickart and Inequality
Schweickart’s take on capitalism begins with a look at the “facts.” He uses the clever analogy of a parade where each person’s height is related to his or her income. He notes that the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income, but his point is striking nonetheless. His analogy really highlights the problem with inequality. He shows that millions of households are below the average income level with many of those even under the poverty line. These people are very short, and they make up the bulk of the parade. In order to stress the inequality of income in America, he then speaks about the super wealthy. These people are very few in number, but they tower over the majority in height. Some of these people are earning $50,000-$100,000 per hour, five to ten more than others earn in a full year. Bill Gates stands 90 miles high, making it hard to argue that there isn’t a huge income gap between the wealthy and the poor who stand only a foot off the ground. Schweickart’s message is hard-hitting because he doesn’t call for a radical answer. He doesn’t suggest that inequality should be completely erased. His point makes sense because he says that inequality is not a problem in itself, it is only a problem because it is so extreme in nature. I tend to agree with him in that something should be done to decrease the income and wealth gap if possible, but on the other hand my conservative nature forces me to consider the alternative. The people at the end of the parade not only fuel our economy [insert jab about raising capital gains taxes], but they are also some of our nations great philanthropists. Bill Gates has donated billions to charity, and while he may be something of an exception, it might be in the best interest of our capitalist economy to not seek a way to redistribute wealth in any radical form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Kyle: I agree with you that Schweickart's message is more "hard-hitting because he doesn't call for a radical answer" or at least doesn't call for a society where people are completely equal. I guess what I would add is that people who call for more equality or the minimization of inequality rarely have in mind a society where everyone is completely equal--or rather, one where everyone is completely the same. The image of a society where everyone is the same is typically employed as a rhetorical device by those who want to discredit efforts to bring about a more equal society. That there are historical examples of something like sameness being the result of efforts to bring about a more equal society probably doesn't help the case of today's advocates of equality, though. That said, even if everyone did make roughly the same amount of money, that doesn't mean they'd be more or less the same. People would still likely choose to consume different things and engage in a wide variety of activities, for instance. Note: I'm not saying you were implying that equality leads to sameness; instead, the two are often confused, so I thought I'd try to dispell that confusion here.
I find your remark about Bill Gates--and wealthy philanthropists in general--of some interest. I guess all I'll do here is throw out a slogan I've heard a number of times: "Justice, not charity"-- the idea here being that charity wouldn't be necessary if people were paid more justly/equitably in the first place. This would not mean that everyone would get paid the same amount, but it would probably mean that, for instance, CEOs wouldn't make 531 times the amount made by workers in entry-level positions in the companies those CEOs are the heads of. (I think CEOs of Fortune 500 companies don't make quite that much nowadays, but that statistic--which I hope I'm not misremembering--applied just a few years ago.)
Post a Comment