Friday, January 30, 2004

 
Inequality Qualms

The Middle Empress has expropriated the main computer for another go at "Postal II" leaving me with the craptop and a primitive dial up connection. I'm also left with little time before the Evening "Me" decides that the fate of the "Morning Me"(who must begin the usual grueling weekend of work) demands an end to pointless reminescence.
One hopes that worries about widening income gaps aren't limited to those with muddy Lenin League boots or "prol" upbring. I don't seem to fit such a profile having been "right from the begining" and am descended, on the paternal side at least, from what have arguably been a downwardly mobile succession of ancestors. A great grandfather owned a chain of shoe stores, went bankrupt during the Great Depression, and motored off his mortal coil by leaving the garage door down. But not before he begat a son who did reasonably well as the hard-nosed owner of a small business. Dad was an engineer who spent most of his employed life in one of the very few federal agencies ever abolished. Leading, I guess, to me, an utterly undistinguished member of a "professional" class. -whose current insecurities and worries about further generational downward mobility makes me, according to some old classical description as a potential fascist. (Of course, looking in the mirror I see only a kindly Classical Liberal with Libertarian leanings.) I'd like to think that my pointless musing on income inequalities in capitalist societies came about because of greatness of soul or intellect, but it might have had something more to do with having shacked up and arguing with a fellow student(for more years than I care to admit)who came from a family of university bolsheviks.
I'd like to think that most conservative commentators lose sleep over income inequality, differing from Derb by remaining largely silent on the matter for fear of drawing attention to unpleasant realities. Never put to paper or pixel was a thought over some decades that just as some economist of communist Poland said something to the effect that they(the commies)owed much to Hayek(or was it von Mises?-Austrians look alike to us uneducated and can't remember the quote exactly)because it "forced us to concentrate on our central problem." The central problem was one of a lack of information in planned economies given their lack of market pricing. The problem was arguably insoluble, even given computers and spiffy mathematical modeling, leading to the fall o' classical communism. -And that (according to the Grand Imperial Me)the "central problem" of capitalism was income inequality. -Not of course, that it even *should* be solved by abolishing or somehow bringing about absolute income inequality(which, would of course, be extremely *unjust* in any system or set of cirumstances I can imagine), but rather, that it *is* an important, at least *potential* problem-no matter that the Left will always bleat about it as well.
Measures purported to decrease income inequality should of course, apart from issues of whether or not they might be "contentious" should be judged on whether or not they would likely achieve that goal or drive us farther from it. Readers are already familiar with arguments that readily available welfare, overly powerful unions, minimum wage laws have predictable and verifiable effects that tend to *increase* income inequality. I have not seen it argued elsewhere(but it's so obvious that *someone* else must have done so)but laws forbidding child labor, slavery,(and prostitution)are not only moral but might decrease income inequality, not so much because it prevents *business* from "exploiting"(hard for me not to put parentheses around that word)children, but because they may reduce the incentives for *parents* to exploit(parentheses *not* needed here)their children -perhaps reducing the incentive to have more children that they can well educate, feed clothe and so on.(Yes, I'm for the continued "socialism" of public education, particularly if done through vouchers)That number could be in the teens for the family in which Ben Franklin or John Derbyshire grew up or two or one or zero for some people today.
There has been no little carping on the pages of Frontpage, NRO, VDARE, FAIR, NUMBERSUSA, and doubtless many others about well to do liberals and conservatives who may oppose immigration restrictions because they derive(probably short term)profit from the lowering of wage rates due to immigration. -but it is still too little carping and one hopes, like Gompers for "MORE!" There have also been many objections to the assertion that immigrants are taking jobs that Americans aren't willing to do. -The counter arguments are made, of course, that many Americans *are* involuntarily unemployed and that those jobs would be filled if wages rose because of a tight labor. And that the assertion is insulting to Americans. However, I have *still* not seen anyone else argue, as I did some posts ago, that the assertion is a false and rather old smear on capitalism itself. In other words, capitalism cannot exist without a large class of very poorly paid people. I urge any reader to read this poorly written stuff carefully, because it is not trivial and it is *not* the same as other, more common arguments against immigration. And yes, Bush himself is making this smear when he blathers on about our market.
To flog this further, capitalism has, although eliminating or largely eliminating(there probably *are* still some makers of buggy whips)many occupations, elevated the wages paid for *all* sorts of work. For example a farmer or industrial worker today is by most measures far more productive than a farmer or industrial worker of say, 150 years ago, wheras a janitor or housekeeper may be only somewhat more(or in some cases less)productive than his/her ye olde counterpart, but the janitor et al are paid rather more than, I dunno, some twentieth of the income of the farmer or industrial worker. Going on with econ 101, the overall productivity has much to do with per capita income, but the *distribution* of that income can be *greatly* affected by influxes of laborers. And let's not forget that using very progressive income taxes to redistribute income arguably reduces production.
One hates to think that many conservatives who might grant that booting out some 10 million illegal immigrants might reduce income inequality[leaving aside reductions in expenditures for schools, hospitals jails-and reductions in "sprawl", traffic congestion, litter, crime etc. etc.], feel that the reduction in that inequality would *not* be a good thing in and of itself. [Hell, it might be worth another Depression or Civil War to avoid the likely consequences of "Anglos" becoming a hated minority.]
Gone on too long, and *"Morning Me" is gonna really loathe "Evening Me" this morning.

*the morning and evening me stuff was lifted from some comic whose name escapes me.