For example, in a December 2013 speech, then President Barak Obama commented extensively on income inequality labeling it “the defining challenge of our time.” This flawed assessment engendered misguides policies during his administration. Despite enormous social expenditures, the U.S. poverty rate in 2015 was 1.0 percent higher than 8 years earlier (Census Bureau Report). The defining challenge of our time is not that our incomes may be widely unequal. The problem is that poverty is widespread. Making everyone equally poorer is not the answer.
Yes, economic inequality may seem wrong, but what is morally undesirable is not inequality, but poverty. Consider the following: In the 2017 Forbes ranking of the World’s Billionaires, Bill Gates topped the list with a net worth of $86 billion. His fortune is 86 times the wealth of those at the bottom of the list with a mere $1 billion in capital. Are we morally offended by this inequality between the top and bottom billionaires?
Or, are we morally outraged by the enormous income inequality between someone earning $100 million yearly and someone earning only one million? Having less and having quite a bit are not contradictory. Doing worse than others is not equivalent to doing poorly.
If we are not distressed by these inequalities, and I do not know anyone who is, it should be clear that it is not inequality as such that we find morally disturbing. As professor Frankfurt puts its, “What directly moves us...is not a relative quantitative discrepancy, but an absolute qualitative deficiency. It is not the fact that the economic resources of those who are worse off are smaller than ours. It is the quite different fact that their resources are too little.”
To the degree that inequality is morally objectionable, is derivative of the fact that income inequality tends to generate unacceptable inequalities of other types such as political influence. The derivate negative aspects of income inequality need to be addressed. But to focus on how our economic status compares with the economic status of others is a shallow analysis that distracts from what ought to be the real policy aim: the elimination of poverty.
No comments:
Post a Comment