Here is a link to a remarkable item from the Boston Globe-
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/01/03/now_the_rich_get_richer_quicker/
It is a terrific way to make a misleading but persuasive argument through mixed data, incomplete data and false premises. It is nothing more than self-fulfilling nonsense. Read on.....
The first statement, not unreasonable, is to question the moral state of the US. Perfectly reasonable, I do it all the time. The very next sentence starts the assumptional argument- "If a just society is defined by the relationship between the well off and the very poor, we have big trouble." Well, IF that is the way a just society is defined. There are a great many ways to define a just society. One of them is that you get what you earn and earn what you are worth.
The next paragraph is filled with statistical sleight of hand. A comparison is made from 1968 between 'the top 20% of Americans' and those living below the poverty line, stating that the income differential was 7 fold. By 2010 it was 14 fold. He then tells us the poverty line in 2010 was 22,000.00 (slight rounding) for a family of four. The implication is that it is outrageous that a family of four would earn 308,000.00 (22,000 x 14). He then says 6.3% of Americans live below half of the poverty line, or earn about 11,000.00 yearly.
Numerous issues. First, the comparison between the top 20% and the poverty line is not equal. They do not represent equivalent slices of the overall income distribution. That being the case, it is only natural that there would be more total income in the larger slice of the distribution, although not more per capita. Second, what is counted as income? Earnings from employment, passive stock earnings, inheritance, governmental assistance? Last, it is wildly distorting and insinuating to describe the proportion of the population living below 1/2 of the poverty line. Are these families of four, or individuals? Bet it is the latter. In any event, making one steady comparison and then adding in a different number and proportion is misleading no matter what numerical measure is used.
He then embarks on a stunning journey taking us from groups differentially affected by 'economic collapse', to his assumptions about the emotional state of the various parts of the income distribution, to his making these assumptions the emotional underpinnings of two decisions which he feels are unjust. These are the decision to let corporations spend freely on political campaigns and the 'massive tax cuts for the wealthiest sub-minority'.
Well, what about those decisions? The wealthiest portion of the population pays the great majority of taxes already. By the simplest mathematics, the largest share of ANY tax cut will go to these people. The people below the poverty line supposedly being unjustly treated by these tax cuts already pay NO tax. And they get all sort of Federal subsidies- housing, food, medical care. Unless we ask the wealthy to pay more to provide these people more, there is no rationale to object to a tax cut for all. Further, Carroll ignores, as all such writers do, the ineluctable mathematics that reducing marginal rates increases tax revenue. The issue is revenue, not rates, at least if you are interested in income as opposed to political show. And corporations should be allowed to speak, just like labor unions are. Both are accretions of people into groups, where the group speaks unilaterally for those with disparate opinion. If it is illegal for corporations to so speak, then it is for unions as well, except that unions support Democrats, so it must be OK.
For reasons that are unclear, Carroll considers the twin pillars of our spending to be the military, with outmoded weapons, an accusation he does not substantiate, and shopping. By the time this remarkable piece of loose associations is complete, an income disparity is reduced to a screed against military spending, and a condemnation of shopping. Wow.
The most outrageous claim, however, is at the end of the second paragraph. Carroll says the US is 'the mythic land of equality'. That is simply, absolutely false. The US is the land of equal opportunity. This in no way guarantees equal outcome. As a simple example, is everyone has equal access to a basketball court this does not guarantee everyone gets an equal shot at the NBA, nor does it mean the income disparity between an NBA player and a high school basketball coach is unfair. In making this analogy, it is worth noting that I went to an affluent, private boys school with a perfect gym and courts with dedicated gym teachers, and I can't do anything with a basketball. Yet how many NBA players come from tar courts of Manhattan, Boston and LA neighborhoods without any coaches of any kind? It is the individual ability and effort of those in the NBA that gets them there and keeps them there, not affirmative action, not subsidies and not the government.
I do thoroughly agree with Carroll about the decay of American values, and have said so in many ways on this blog. Oddly, income isn't one of them, and income inequality is not unfair. Each person earns what they are worth, and they are worth what their abilities and effort make them.
Freedom to invent, opportunity to succeed, carry with them the possibility of failure, indolence and stagnation. It is us, not the government through taxation, or rants about income disparity, that make for success. If you don't like the income distribution, do something that will make you more money. Get the skills, stay in school, don't take drugs or screw around. And stop blaming the success of those who did it right for the failure of those who did it wrong.
Ted
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/01/03/now_the_rich_get_richer_quicker/
It is a terrific way to make a misleading but persuasive argument through mixed data, incomplete data and false premises. It is nothing more than self-fulfilling nonsense. Read on.....
The first statement, not unreasonable, is to question the moral state of the US. Perfectly reasonable, I do it all the time. The very next sentence starts the assumptional argument- "If a just society is defined by the relationship between the well off and the very poor, we have big trouble." Well, IF that is the way a just society is defined. There are a great many ways to define a just society. One of them is that you get what you earn and earn what you are worth.
The next paragraph is filled with statistical sleight of hand. A comparison is made from 1968 between 'the top 20% of Americans' and those living below the poverty line, stating that the income differential was 7 fold. By 2010 it was 14 fold. He then tells us the poverty line in 2010 was 22,000.00 (slight rounding) for a family of four. The implication is that it is outrageous that a family of four would earn 308,000.00 (22,000 x 14). He then says 6.3% of Americans live below half of the poverty line, or earn about 11,000.00 yearly.
Numerous issues. First, the comparison between the top 20% and the poverty line is not equal. They do not represent equivalent slices of the overall income distribution. That being the case, it is only natural that there would be more total income in the larger slice of the distribution, although not more per capita. Second, what is counted as income? Earnings from employment, passive stock earnings, inheritance, governmental assistance? Last, it is wildly distorting and insinuating to describe the proportion of the population living below 1/2 of the poverty line. Are these families of four, or individuals? Bet it is the latter. In any event, making one steady comparison and then adding in a different number and proportion is misleading no matter what numerical measure is used.
He then embarks on a stunning journey taking us from groups differentially affected by 'economic collapse', to his assumptions about the emotional state of the various parts of the income distribution, to his making these assumptions the emotional underpinnings of two decisions which he feels are unjust. These are the decision to let corporations spend freely on political campaigns and the 'massive tax cuts for the wealthiest sub-minority'.
Well, what about those decisions? The wealthiest portion of the population pays the great majority of taxes already. By the simplest mathematics, the largest share of ANY tax cut will go to these people. The people below the poverty line supposedly being unjustly treated by these tax cuts already pay NO tax. And they get all sort of Federal subsidies- housing, food, medical care. Unless we ask the wealthy to pay more to provide these people more, there is no rationale to object to a tax cut for all. Further, Carroll ignores, as all such writers do, the ineluctable mathematics that reducing marginal rates increases tax revenue. The issue is revenue, not rates, at least if you are interested in income as opposed to political show. And corporations should be allowed to speak, just like labor unions are. Both are accretions of people into groups, where the group speaks unilaterally for those with disparate opinion. If it is illegal for corporations to so speak, then it is for unions as well, except that unions support Democrats, so it must be OK.
For reasons that are unclear, Carroll considers the twin pillars of our spending to be the military, with outmoded weapons, an accusation he does not substantiate, and shopping. By the time this remarkable piece of loose associations is complete, an income disparity is reduced to a screed against military spending, and a condemnation of shopping. Wow.
The most outrageous claim, however, is at the end of the second paragraph. Carroll says the US is 'the mythic land of equality'. That is simply, absolutely false. The US is the land of equal opportunity. This in no way guarantees equal outcome. As a simple example, is everyone has equal access to a basketball court this does not guarantee everyone gets an equal shot at the NBA, nor does it mean the income disparity between an NBA player and a high school basketball coach is unfair. In making this analogy, it is worth noting that I went to an affluent, private boys school with a perfect gym and courts with dedicated gym teachers, and I can't do anything with a basketball. Yet how many NBA players come from tar courts of Manhattan, Boston and LA neighborhoods without any coaches of any kind? It is the individual ability and effort of those in the NBA that gets them there and keeps them there, not affirmative action, not subsidies and not the government.
I do thoroughly agree with Carroll about the decay of American values, and have said so in many ways on this blog. Oddly, income isn't one of them, and income inequality is not unfair. Each person earns what they are worth, and they are worth what their abilities and effort make them.
Freedom to invent, opportunity to succeed, carry with them the possibility of failure, indolence and stagnation. It is us, not the government through taxation, or rants about income disparity, that make for success. If you don't like the income distribution, do something that will make you more money. Get the skills, stay in school, don't take drugs or screw around. And stop blaming the success of those who did it right for the failure of those who did it wrong.
Ted
Amen!
ReplyDeleteDavid