The Progressive Pulse

My previous post was a teaser which asked the question “Do you favor freedom over equality? Or, “Do you favor equality over freedom?”

With all due apology, these were intentionally equivocal questions and they illustrate almost everything that is wrong with American politics. Regarding freedom and equality, it is not necessary to choose between the two. You can have equality and freedom. In fact, as Daniel Brook observes in his superb book The Trap: Selling out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America:

It is buying into a core conservative idea in accepting that freedom is a value of the Right and equality a value of the Left, and that one must choose between them in a zero-sum game. That government action to increase equality restrains freedom is a central tenet of Hayek (Austrian economist favored by Goldwater) and Milton Friedman, Reagan and Bush. And it is a fundamentally antidemocratic belief, one that forsakes the promise of modern democracy.

Many have argued, including Thomas Jefferson, that a base level of equality is mandatory for American society to be truly free. It is important to understand this principle. In what has been dubbed the “golden age of profitability,” we are now living in a modern Gilded Age where increasing income disparity has led to extreme inequality.

Thomas Jefferson’s aim in crafting the modern world’s first post-aristocratic society was motivated by a sense that so much talent was going to waste. As our society has grown more unequal, this same squandering of talent has begun to plague us again. Too many, trapped in poverty, are not given an adequate chance to develop their talents. Others reach their educational potential only to find themselves corralled, by debt and the financial burden of raising a family without a safety net, into an ever narrower set of career paths.

Brook is particularly angry that the nation’s “best and brightest” cannot afford to serve the public good. He notes no more than 30%-40%of graduates from elite training programs such as Harvard School of Government and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs actually go to work for the federal government. Similarly, while 70% of Harvard’s first year law student express an interest in public interest law, only 5% actually pursue it at graduation. Listen, I’m only a once-a-week blogger here, but advocates who dedicate themselves wholly to non-profit work make significant financial sacrifices in comparison to their colleagues in the private sector. It seems that if we had a better safety net in place, it would free more people to pursue work that better serves our community and societal needs. As it stands now, your work is recognized primarily as it relates to added value for corporate America.

In the end, it’s not necessary to choose between equality and freedom. Rather, we must choose equality to attain freedom. Brook ends his book with this:

Today, in a modern prosperous America, we can afford to give free rein to all the talented, public-spirited, potential Jeffersons among us — rich or poor, black or white, male or female –and reclaim the pursuit of happiness. But to do so, we must overthrow the failed policies of recent decades and see through their mirage of false freedom.

23 Comments Add yours »

krm0517 29 Aug 2007 9:21 am

I have lived in eastern North Carolina my whole life and work in the nonprofit sector. I grew up lower middle class (lower middle class in eastern NC is what many of you folks from the Piedmont would call poor) and joined the Air Force so that I can now be in college.

I blame social safety nets for the decrease in social mobility. We are subsidizing poverty and making the lifestyle of the uneducated, unskilled and disinterested a comfortable existance for people who are not interested in contributing to society. Working toward equality of outcomes will not motivate people to contribute more.

Max 29 Aug 2007 10:23 am

Great point, krm0571. Take the minimum wage. If you are a highschool student guaranteed $5 an hour, versus $7 or $8 an hour, you have an increased incentive to stay in that position and less incentive to get skills or college training for hopes of larger future returns. So much for upward mobility. (More problems with a minwage here: http://www.examiner.com/a-376994~Max_Borders__Five_reasons_not_to_raise_the_minimum_wage.html)

Welfare entitlements like Medicaid keep people in a low wage trap, as you can see here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6841

I will pass over discussing the irony that the Milton Friedman derided above in the quote invented the EITC. Suffice it to say that keeping people on the dole creates a subsistence underclass that discourages a growing middle class. Hayek is certainly not to blame.

Max 29 Aug 2007 10:45 am

Sorry, I couldn’t help but add an additional point: The writer that Mr. Turner is clearly enamored of puts the phrase “Winner Take All” in the title. And yet, in the quoted passage, he uses the term “zero-sum” as if he knows what it means. If you understand the notion that there are positive sum arrangments facilitated by trade, then how can America be “winner take all”? I’m not sure this author is doing anything but throwing out vacuous bromides for leftish types to lap up. Forced economic equality and economic liberty are, unfortunately, not commensurable. But increased prosperity is the result of the latter, for sure. (Thanks for the two comment allowance, Steve, and btw I still appreciate the teaser, despite not agreeing with your punchline post above.)

Brian 29 Aug 2007 10:55 am

Individual liberty and “equality” are directly at odds. It is not possible for government to redistribute wealth in an attempt to “equalize” individual outcomes without first taking from those who earned the wealth. I can’t figure out how the government taking more private property (wealth) from people makes them more free.

In your post you say:
“It seems that if we had a better safety net in place, it would free more people to pursue work that better serves our community and societal needs.”

Who pays for that safety net? How are these people more free?

By the way, people earn money in the private market by “serving the community and societal needs” by providing goods and services that consumers voluntarily pay for in order to safisy said needs.

The greatest efforts to produce “equality” have inevitably collapsed into the most unequal societies in history – those that consist of two classes: the ruling elite and the ruled, oppressed masses.

aplum 29 Aug 2007 10:55 am

What planet are you living on?! You honestly think people want to stay in $7 an hour jobs. To afford a 2 bedroom apartment in Raleigh– and still eat–requires someone to earn $12 an hour.

krm0517 29 Aug 2007 11:12 am

We are on the same planet, aplum, yet countries, states, regions, counties and towns are very different from one another. A home in Raleigh may average $177,200 but where I live it is closer to $84,800. When I lived in Raleigh (for an intership in the NCGA) my rent was nearly double what it is here in the east.

To suggest that a blanket minimum wage across the nation, or even the state for that matter, that would make life more comfortable in Raleigh for low wage workers is somehow equitable shows just how out of touch with reality that you are. That sort of policy would be devastating to poorer regions because business could nat afford to pay those wages here.

Max 29 Aug 2007 11:24 am

Nevermind that I stipulated a wage for a high school student who one can safely presume lives at home. The whole point behind upward mobility is that you have to start somewhere to have a place to go.

“Living wage” fetishists fail to realize that higher wages destroys the creation of other lower wage job opportunities. (For example: As a small business owner, I wanted three employees at $6.00 per hour but I can only hire two due to the minwage. The lot of the two employees has improved. But that third person I would have hired still has no income versus the prospect of some income, despite how low the wage is. But ask an immigrant worker from El Salvador which situation she prefers–$6 per hr or $0 per hour. For her and her family, that is a ‘living wage.’)

sturner 29 Aug 2007 11:27 am

Thanks for the responses.
First…all the responders seem to be focused only on the “welfare” aspect of the safety net. How about universal healthcare, unions, affordable housing, affordable higher education, child care…this has nothing to do with “being on the dole,” but might promote upward mobility.

Second…about that wealth redistribution. Approximate top individual tax rates were 90% with FDR, 70% before Reagan, 30% after Reagan’s tax cuts. Who are you or me to say what is the “right” amount of taxation? “Redistribution” ebbs and flows in both directions…Reagan obviously wanted to “redistribute” to the most wealthy. I’m arguing that a “correction” is in order and that money could be put to better use to promote programs that would improve mobility.

Finally, read the New York Times lead editorial from today which cites just released Census Bureau economic statistics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/opinion/29wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Read the whole thing, but they draw the same conclusions that I have outlined here. “This stilted distribtion of rewards underscores how economic growth alone has been insufficient to provide better living standards for most American families. What are needed are policies to help spread benefits more broadly–be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable healthcare”

krm0517 29 Aug 2007 11:44 am

You are advocating central economic planning, Mr. Turner. My last post shows why this never has and never will work. There are far too many vagaries and variables in life to assume that centalized decisionmaking is possible. It is quixotic to believe that what is good for the folks in Wake will be good for the folks in Robeson, not to mention that a central planner has the ability to know everything necessary to make decisions about everything involved in human interaction. This is all explained in much greater detail in Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

Max 29 Aug 2007 11:48 am

I blogged about the census data yesterday, which I encourage you to read: http://redclaycitizen.typepad.com/redclay/2007/08/the-poverty-of-.html

Also, the very redistributive measures the Gray Lady is calling for are the self-same measures we argue keep people at subsistence poverty. That said, I’m not troubled by wealth disparities as much as I would be about purchasing power or the inability to gain access to job opportunities, food, and shelter. On this, I think we fundamentally disagree about the severity of the problem, not to mention the source. On the latter: you say markets. I say government. (But the government doesn’t create wealth, only markets do.)

Brian 29 Aug 2007 11:49 am

“How about universal healthcare, unions, affordable housing, affordable higher education, child care…this has nothing to do with “being on the dole,”

Who pays for it all? I am curious as to your definintion of “being on the dole.”

“Reagan obviously wanted to “redistribute” to the most wealthy.”

“Redistribute” from whom? Allowing people to keep more of the money they earned is not the same as taking money from some people (via the gov’t) and giving it to others.

Max 29 Aug 2007 11:49 am

“Reagan obviously wanted to “redistribute” to the most wealthy.” I think you’re failing to understand what redistribution means. If it means that people should be allowed to keep more of what they earn, that’s a curious definition, indeed.

James 29 Aug 2007 1:44 pm

*Sigh*

Max 29 Aug 2007 2:23 pm

If this is James of “Anglico” fame, I’m not surprised to see mere emoting.

James 29 Aug 2007 2:35 pm

Sometimes mere emoting is all I can conjure up in the face of the same-old same-old bullshit arguments.

Yes, this is James of “Anglico” fame. And if this is Max of “Max” fame, I’m not surprised that you had this to say:

That said, I’m not troubled by wealth disparities as much as I would be about purchasing power or the inability to gain access to job opportunities, food, and shelter.

I haven’t noticed that you’re troubled at all about people’s inability to gain access to job opportunities, food, and shelter (and, presumably, health care). How many people must live on the street or suffer from chronic malnutrition or go without basic medical care to have the problem be large enough for you to be “troubled?”

sturner 29 Aug 2007 3:02 pm

Max…
“There you go again” (RR) with your famous “framing” of an issue (in this case, “keep what you earn”). All taxation is a redistribution from you the taxpayer to the government. Unless you’re advocating no taxation, then there will be redistribution. How much tax is collected and how that money is spent is one reason why we have elections.
You would like to see the top 5% of wage-earners “keep more of what they earn”, even though the census data show they have done very, very, well over the past 5 years (while the rest of the country was stagnant or worse). I would like to see a more equitable progressive taxation of the top 5% so programs could be funded that would allow all of our citizens a similar opportunity to succeed.

Jim Stegall 30 Aug 2007 11:34 am

I too would like to see the top 5% of wage-earners “keep more of what the earn,” and I don’t see how it makes any difference whether they have done well or not over the last five years. As long as they’ve earned it, it’s not anyone else’s concern how well they’ve done. As one of those other 95% guys, I certainly don’t feel entitled to more services or a higher standard of living based on the fact that someone else made out well.

The fact is the top 5% already pay a share of taxes that is vastly out of porportion to their numbers, while the bottom half pay very little. Many pay only social security and medicare, and a piddling amount of state and local taxes. To my way of thinking the fairest tax is one that taxes everyone the same rate, with some relief at the lowest end for those who work hard but still barely get by.

krm0517 30 Aug 2007 12:09 pm

I would like for one of you folks from NC Policy Watch to answer this very simple question for me.

Why should a young person (such as myself) get up every day and work full-time to put myself through college (yes I used the GI Bill for my undergraduate but I am paying for my MAEd out of pocket) if all I have to look forward to is the government seizing everything I worked for so that someone who didn’t get up and go to work and school can be entitled to all of the amenities that I want in life?

And yes, I consider healthcare to be an amenity, not a right. I have not had healthcare since leaving the Air Force in March of 2000 and I still manage to get up and labor 80+ hours for $300 a week. I am young, health and (at least for now) free to make my own decisions about my well-being.

If you guys have it your way, everything I am working for would be taken from me and handed to someone else who would then vote for politicians who espouse the larcenous policies you advocate.

sturner 30 Aug 2007 1:13 pm

C’mon, krm, 80+ hours per week? When do you sleep, man, because I know you spend 40 hours per week objecting to NC Policy Watch. And a Masters in Education? In what? I need to warn my school-age children.

You do seem to be in some type of time warp, krm. Your rant is vintage Ronald Reagan circa 1980. I’m surprised you didn’t mention Cadillac driving welfare queens.

Your point is basically ridiculous. When the top individual tax rate was 70% (before Reagan, when CEO’s only made 20 times the average worker) people in the top 5% worked just as hard as they did when Reagan lowered it to 28%. Now it is at 35% (and CEO’s make 400 times the average worker). Do you think a lot of CEO’s threw in the towel and went on the dole because it was increased to 35%? No. And if it were increased to 42% or capital gains were taxed at 35% rather than 15%, everybody would continue to work as their circumstances or desires dictate. One thing you will see, though, is that people in the lower tiers who have falling or stagnant wages will work more hours or get a second or third job (and their spouses will do the same).

krm0517 31 Aug 2007 10:03 am

I work full-time for a non-profit and go to school full-time so, yes, I spend about 80 hours a week working on either school work or working to pay my bills. I am working on a MAEd for Adult Education. I am interested in community college administration.

The Left in this country is always working toward equality of outcomes. You always talk about taking from the evil top wage earners (i.e. the “haves”) to give more to the disadvantaged (i.e. the “have-nots”). Which means the more I work, the more you want the government to take away from me to give to people who didn’t work as hard as I have worked.

I see you are completely unwilling to answer my question, as I figured would be the case… Why should a young person get up every day and work full-time and go to college if all they have to look forward to is the government seizing everything they work for so that someone who didn’t get up and go to work and school can be entitled to all of the same amenities in life?

aplum 31 Aug 2007 11:13 am

The state’s university system is a microcosm of the ‘haves’ (i.e., the 16 campuses of the UNC system) and ‘have-nots’ (our community colleges). After working a few years for the ‘have-nots’, watching the ‘haves’ take the lions share of funds, I wonder if you’ll begin to see the world a little differently.

The Left isn’t talking about equality of outcomes, we’re just talking about having a fair playing field.

krm0517 31 Aug 2007 11:45 am

I choose the community college system because I believe in personal responsibility and want to dedicate my life to helping people develop skills to provide for themselves and their families. I could pursue a career in which I would make big bucks to sit around and complain about everything I don’t like at some thinktank but I would much rather go out and actually make a difference that has a positive effect in the lives of average folks.

I know what I am getting into. I know I will probably never make 6 digit annual figures. But out here in eastern NC, you can live a very comfortable life off of a fraction of what you guys in Raleigh and Chapel Hill make.

Roger Freeman 29 Sep 2007 11:01 pm

I personally don’t think we live in a capitalist economy anymore; we live in a corporate economy. The last few generations choose to sacrifice liberty for profit. Democracy is just a tool and without protection of the minority it becomes tyranny of the majority. Liberty is the most important aspect; the form of government is just the tool to maintain it based on a social contract from one citizen to all.

In our day though, the social contract is dead. No one respects the social contracts and if you want liberty you must purchase it and can actually destroy the liberty of those who are unable to defend themselves from those who have wealth.

If you want real upward mobility then we need to return to the idea of liberty. There should be no taxation on labor, only the profits of business. Taxation of labor is akin to ownership of people by the government. Remove taxation of property as well. If people choose they can live off their land and never pay a single tax, which is true liberty. If they have a business and make a profit, that is different.

The current system though is actually socialistic protectionism for the wealthy. That wealthy being the people on Wall Street and the banking system administered by the Federal Reserve. The central bankers and their founders are the ones that supported the setup of the IRS and taxation of the masses. They needed the masses to be taxed so that the banks could bailout their failed businesses and redistribute taxation onto the masses instead of them. This is how the wealthy fail forward, at everyone else’s expense.

Let me simplify it a bit. The banks print the money then lend it to their rich friends on Wall Street. Wall Street uses it at the current value of money in circulation, then goes out and buys businesses. When their buddies on Wall Street fail the banks bailout or attempt to use interest rate manipulation to protect them. If these businesses really make a huge mess then the banks bail them out, maybe even with taxpayers holding the tag directly. Either way, all of this debt is paid for in inflation and the loss of purchasing power by all laborers who are paid in dollars. Not only that it is a direct tax by the wealthy upon everyone who has a dollar in his or her pocket. This is a socialist system that is setup for the protection of the most powerful people in our nation, those who control the wealth.

I guess you could say you pay taxes twice. You pay one time to the government and you pay a second to Wall Street and the banks.

In a real capitalist system with a real free market there would be no regulatory banks and supply and demand would set the rates as well as risk aversion. Through the failure of banks, business upward mobility exists by new business replacing them. Also, real free trade that benefits upward mobility is trade that even the least of American citizens would be protected and allowed to buy and sell form a citizen in China or any other nation as they wish. Attempting to block free trade by large corporate entities should be seen as a direct attack upon liberty and the desire of the wealthy to entrench themselves as aristocracy.

A government’s only reason for existence is to protect individual liberty of each of its citizens.

Maybe we need a rule to have a separation of business and state, like that of church and state. In setting up our society I think the founders believed to much in the inherent decency of men of wealth to desire to do the right thing. A few of them hated hereditary rule, yet hereditary rule has often come out of families of great wealth who entrench themselves in society and government. And the last recourse to remove aristocracy has always ended in bloody war through out history.

Search