One thing's sure and nothing's surer...

What do we liberals think about income inequality?

This question has dogged me for years. On one hand, it just seems wrong that business owners and financiers should be driving around in $100,000 Ferraris while the poor have to tell their kids that they can't afford to eat steak. But on the other hand, I realize the realities of economics - if we try to get the government to confiscate those Ferraris and sell them to buy steak for the poor, those rich people will just quit and move to China with their Ferraris, and then the poor will have neither steak nor a job.

This article in the National Review has a lot of good points (and a few stinkers). The article points out that those ominous studies that show rising income equality in the U.S. often don't take into account people's age - they lump low-income elderly and young people in with "the poor." It also notes that such studies don't take government assistance (EITC, food stamps, housing assistance) into account - meaning that even if we sold the aforementioned Ferrari, the steak we bought wouldn't show up in income-inequality studies. (Also true, but unmentioned, is the fact that a large part of the increase in inequality has come from more rich women entering the workforce.)

The article also makes some more fundamental philosophical points. Chief among these is the idea that, if poor people's income increases, then all is well, even if rich people's income increases even faster. In other words, we should compare poor people's situation to the past, not to some idealized hypothetical future.

I find myself agreeing with this. I've found that, when people judge themselves relative to other people, they're seldom happy; if we compare ourselves to the past, we can feel more of a sense of accomplishment (in addition to having more stuff). Better than before is better, period.

The article also cites America's high income mobility (although this is ominiously slipping) as a reason not to worry about inequality. This implies that poverty isn't as bad if you don't have to stay there for long. I find myself cautiously agreeing with that too, but only up to a point; if someone moves up the relative income scale, someone else has got to move down. It's better to have people take turns at being the poorest, but mobility doesn't solve the whole problem.

On the whole, the article has a good point, and one that it wouldn't hurt us liberals to hear. We shouldn't worry very much about income inequality in its pure form; what we should care about is helping the poor as much as we can. Our job should be:

* to increase economic opportunity, so that that poor people can move up in the world and feel a sense of accomplishment and progress,

* to help the poor get skills, so they can feel the sense of dignity and worth that comes from being able to make money on their own, and

* to make sure America has safety nets in place so that temporary poverty isn't crushing.

These are no simple tasks. They require creative and shrewd policies, far-reaching vision, and major changes in the structure of American society. But before we liberals can take action, we have to agree on the goals. And I believe that our goal should be not eradicating inequality, but giving a brighter future to the people at the bottom.


BONUS READING GUIDE

1. Kudos to Bush (eh?)! I totally agree with this article, which praises Condoleeza Rice for making U.S. foreign policy less centered on Europe and more attentive to the developing world. Good call. See, I am no Bush hater. I give credit where credit is due. Unfortunately, everything that I don't explicity mention Bush getting right, you can assume he's getting wrong.

2. Attention, all conservatives! The Republican party is going crazy with big-government spending! Charge! Attack! Fight for small government!...Guys? You like small government, right?...Guys?