Kaus On Inequality
An excerpt from Mickey Kaus' WSJ piece on the problem with the Democrats' new war on inequality ("the defining challenge of our time," says President Obama):
Harsh Truth No. 1: Democrats aren't proposing anything that comes close to reversing this three-decade trend. They got nothin', as the comedians say. Raising the minimum wage may be a good idea, but it affects a sliver of the labor market. It's not going to stop the top 10% from taking home 50% of the nation's income, or 51%. The same goes for extending unemployment compensation. Even the tax increases fought for by Mr. Obama are a blip. On paper they might cut the incomes of the very richest Americans by 6%--until the rich find ways to avoid them.If Democrats are going to get voters to play along they should maybe give them at least an idea of what they propose to do and how it will achieve their goal--without toxic side effects. A better plan is to ask why we care about economic inequality anyway. If the poor and middle class were getting steadily richer, would it matter that the rich are getting richer much faster?
I agree with WSJ commenter JOHN HOLSTEAD, who thinks the real interest is in legally bribing voters to pull the D levers:
Contrary to the assumptions made in this article, creating equality of any type is not the ultimate goal of President Obama or Democrats, votes are.All the rest (e.g. income inequality, raising taxes on the top 1%, raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, easing eligibility requirements for disability benefits etc.) is merely window dressing and propaganda designed and intended to turn out voters and their votes for Democrats. The upcoming State of The Union Address will be full of it and can, I expect, be distilled to one sentence: From each according to their ability to pay, to each according to their need.
The key insight that well-meaning progressives lack, is this: You can provide equal opportunity, but you cannot guarantee equal outcomes.
Inequality exists, and will always exist. People choose whether or not they will take their opportunies. On top of that, "shit happens", i.e., unexpected fortunes and misfortunes will influence individual lives. We do not live in Lake Wobegone.
a_random_guy at January 27, 2014 12:46 AM
Good point. As long as their is liberty, outcomes will be different.
I earned a master's degree, began a career, got married, adopted children, and do my best to fulfill my responsibilities.
My cousin flunked out of college, has a criminal record, knocked up another man's wife, and gets fired from most jobs.
We started off near equal, and are still equal in terms of being humans. As free Americans we made choices, and our the results have not been equal.
Yet his vote is bought with my earnings.
This is why socialism collapses societies. Letting him have my money without earning is to expect me to earn the money without having it. Over time more people opt to have the money, and fewer people are willing to work to hand it over to someone who doesn't appreciate it and usually resents those supporting them. Perverse incentives.
Trust at January 27, 2014 7:47 AM
But if people are convinced that disparity in outcomes is evidence of disparity in opportunity, that insight won't convince of much.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at January 27, 2014 7:56 AM
I mean, "... convince them of much."
So much for proofreading.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at January 27, 2014 7:57 AM
The key insight that well-meaning progressives lack, is this: You can provide equal opportunity, but you cannot guarantee equal outcomes.
But if people are convinced that disparity in outcomes is evidence of disparity in opportunity, that insight won't convince of much.
Posted by: Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at January 27, 2014 7:56 AM
95 percent of what is wrong is the world today, is people confusing cause and effect. The other five percent is pure stupidity, and greed.
The cure is messy and painful, and only teaches lessons that last about a generation. Because what cant continue wont, when you run out of other people's money.
Isab at January 27, 2014 8:08 AM
It's very difficult to get a progressive to freely give up what they have to give to one who has less. But they readily declare themselves generous when they force people who have more than then to do so. All the while railing against the stinginess of those actually paying for their charity.
They project their unwillingness to help onto others, yet give themselves credit for the help others provide.
Trust at January 27, 2014 8:09 AM
Hmm, I guess I don't understand Reynold's point about Colorado.
While I don't see the Feds arresting all the pot smokers in Colorado, having a computer add a penalty to tax returns seems pretty scalable.
jerry at January 27, 2014 8:51 AM
Maybe I'm smoking too much and can't figure out which thread I'm in.
jerry at January 27, 2014 8:56 AM
"95 percent of what is wrong is the world today, is people confusing cause and effect. The other five percent is pure stupidity, and greed."
I suggest that the public is confused in another way: we do not understand the difference between possession and ownership. Part of the reason the big box stores like Walmart are successful is that a person may walk in there, see all the merchandise, and be reassured of their own worth by simple proximity. This is further reinforced by the reassurances of credit providers who insist that yes, you may have all this.
Radwaste at January 27, 2014 9:24 AM
There are many problems with the equality in equality message.
So many bad ones float around the web. Any time bad ones come across my FB, I try to point out the obvious errors and misconceptions in it. Mainly because often people don't know what terms actually mean, and don't realize what is being compared.
For example, When we talk about income inequality, why use pre-tax dollars. When stated as: "We need to increase taxes on the rich until their pre-tax income is equal to your pre-tax/pre handout income." It becomes a bit more obvious what the deception is.
Or comparing peoples wealth, Wealth being savings accumulated over a lifetime (sometimes several lifetimes with inheritance)
So what does it really mean to be comparing the lifetime accumulated savings of a 5 month old vs that of a 70 year old, and being fake surprised that the 70 year olds wealth is much higher than that of the 5 month old.
Joe J at January 27, 2014 9:52 AM
I believe part if the problem is that they pitch slogans from the target voters point of view.
"Free health care" is seems like liberty to one voter, but it is servitude to those forced to pay for it.
Sandra Fluke may believe tax dollars for birth control is liberity, but when money for her lifestyle comes out of my check before I've fed my kids, liberty is not what I'd call it.
Affirmative action may seem liberating to a beneficiary, but not to the more qualified candidate who didn't get the job for no other reason than their race.
True livery is available to all. Free speech. Religious freedom. Etc. If lame progressive thought were applied to speech and religion, then the government would have to provide us with auditoriums and churches, which then would not be liberty to those it takes from.
The only things government should force us to do are things that are necessary to presserve overall liberty. We need jury summons to protect ourselves from false imprisonment. We need the draft as a last resort against being conquered. What we don't need is a government telling us we have to by our own health insurance and our someone else's birth control before we feed our own children in order to secure votes from people who don't appreciate us for the money they get from us.
Trust at January 27, 2014 10:15 AM
"True livery is available to all. Free speech. "
Not if the leftists can help it. To them, "free speech" includes the "freedom" to not have their ideas criticized or challenged. Which means that, in order for them to have free speech, your freedom of speech must necessarily be abridged.
Cousin Dave at January 27, 2014 12:07 PM
> The cure is messy and painful, and only teaches
> lessons that last about a generation
☑
People, young and stupid people especially, are pants-down, stroke-in-public horny to pretend that human nature has undergone some sort of transition in the last ten, fifty, two thousand, or ten thousand years.
This is not the case.
Excepting (perhaps) immunity to a few unremarkable microbes (and with unseen vulnerability to as many new contenders), you are precisely as fit a person as was your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother.
Or grandfather. Or hers. Or his.
Your culture may be a little better.
But watch the Grammy awards, and then look me in the eye, and tell me you know for certain.
No. (Ug!)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 27, 2014 9:36 PM
By the way, the last granny on that list? She was mine, too. And Gog's.
Bitch was a slut.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 27, 2014 9:37 PM
By the way, you guys meant liberty, not livery, right?
OK, fine. Luvyoo.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 27, 2014 9:42 PM
Also, I love Kaus, but not enough to subscribe to WSJ for one column.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 27, 2014 9:43 PM
Yes, liberty not livery. Fat fingered on an android and didn't proof read.
Trust at January 28, 2014 7:13 AM
Android is a wonderful thing to own, but you're right, blog comments are no fun to do on one. Or any email longer than five words. And when you try to use the voice recognition, the results sponge officialise hatted clavoca.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 28, 2014 8:47 AM
Leave a comment