I don’t like the inequality debate because it’s a distraction from the far more important issue of how to generate more growth.
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to once again address the topic. Let’s start with a moral observation: There’s nothing wrong with the kind of inequality that results from honest exchange.
Bill Gates earns far more money than me, but his earnings and wealth are the result of voluntary exchange (at least as far as I know). Consumers voluntarily give him money because they value the goods and services produced by Microsoft.
So it would be nothing but self-destructive envy for me to grouse and complain. And it would be immoral for me to steal his money, either acting on my own or using the coercive power of government.
Dennis Prager elaborated on this principle in National Review.
…what most matters…is whether the wealthiest class has attained its wealth honestly or corruptly. If the wealthy have attained their wealth morally and legally, then the income gap is not a moral problem. In a free society, wealth is not a pie — meaning that when a slice of pie is removed, there is less of the pie remaining.
For what it’s worth, I don’t even think it’s wrong that leftists like Michael Bloomberg and Barbara Streisand earn more money in a year than I could earn in 10 lifetimes. So long as they earn their money honestly (i.e., not via government favoritism like some statists), their financial success is admirable.
But I do have the right to complain about the way some leftists spend their money. That’s because they promote and support policies that make it hard for lower-income people to climb the economic ladder.
But I’m not just talking about left-wing support for statist policies that dampen growth and hurt all income classes. In some cases their preferred policies result in the transfer of income and wealth from the poor to the rich.
And that creates the wrong kind of inequality. Not just wrong. Grotesquely unethical.
Let’s look at some examples.
Andrew Lundeen of the Tax Foundation found that the poor are hurt and some rich folks benefit when reviewing the impact of class-warfare taxes.
When fewer people are willing to invest, two things happen. First, the capital stock (i.e. the amount of computers, factories, equipment) shrinks over time, which makes workers less productive and decreases future wages. Second, because there is less capital available the available capital is more valuable, which causes the return to capital to rise. The effect of this over time is that wage earners make less and capital owners make more. Our current tax code exacerbates this problem significantly through its non-neutral bias towards consumption over future consumption (i.e. saving).
Amen. This is why I keep sharing this chart showing that double taxation hurts workers.
Now let’s look at what Professor Jeffrey Dorfman wrote about the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policy for Forbes.
…the Fed’s low interest rates have been responsible for inflating stock market values. By reducing the returns to savings accounts, certificates of deposit and bonds, the Fed has intentionally driven ordinary investors to increase their investment allocation to the stock market, thereby boosting stock returns. Because people with more wealth tend to own more stock, those higher stock prices have led the rich to gain much more than the poor and middle class. Low interest rates have meant low borrowing costs for large corporations with direct access to capital markets. This low-cost borrowing has boosted corporate profits which also flow mostly to the wealthy.
He’s right. The rich disproportionately benefit from rising asset values, while the rest of us suffer because of low interest rates on our savings accounts (though the rich may regret such policies if the result is a bubble that eventually bursts).
Dorfman also points out that statist policies, broadly speaking, penalize labor relative to capital. And this is not good for workers in general, but it’s especially harmful for low-income workers.
…the low interest rates set by the Fed combined with the additional labor costs thanks to the Obama Administration (Obamacare and its associated taxes) are changing the relative prices of labor and capital. …This also increases economic inequality because the poor and middle class earn most (or all) of their money from labor income, while the rich collect a significant share of their income in various forms of returns to capital (dividends, interest, capital gains and business profits). Purposely tilting the economy in favor of capital and against labor is pretty close to taking from the poor and giving to the rich, the exact reverse of normal government attempts to redistribute income.
Even the left-leaning Urban Institute recognizes the big government sometimes helps the rich at the expense of the poor. Here’s some of what Leigh Franke wrote about land-use restrictions.
Restrictive land-use regulations, including zoning laws, are partially to blame for the stagnant growth… Land-use regulations may be intended to protect the environment or people’s health and safety, and even to enhance the supply of affordable housing, but in excess, they restrict housing supply, drive up home prices, and limit mobility. …More and more zoning restrictions meant less construction, fewer permits, and a restricted housing supply that drove up prices even further. …cities often have stringent zoning laws, a restricted housing supply, and high prices, making it nearly impossible for lower-income residents and newcomers, who would likely benefit most from the opportunities available, to find affordable housing.
The minimum wage is another example of a left-wing policy that causes the wrong type of inequality, as explained by Robert Graboyes of the Mercatus Center.
The $15-an-hour minimum wage is a superb tool if your goal is increasing inequality. To the least-advantaged Americans, its logic is simple: “You lose your jobs and access to jobs so your wealthier neighbors might enjoy small wage increases and greater protection from competitors like you.” …Other than wealthier employees, who benefits from a $15 minimum wage? Income is likely to soar for a CEO whose company builds robots to replace low-wage workers. …instigators and beneficiaries of minimum wages are often labor unions who benefit from eliminating potential competitors…harsh restrictions on job-seekers can do damage that lasts a lifetime. A teenager shut out of employment by an exorbitant minimum wage will fail to learn job skills and establish a track record that impresses future prospective employers. And the effects will not fall evenly: Children of wealth and privilege have many routes to circumvent such restrictions. The inner-city teen, striving for a better life, has no such good fortune.
Spot on. Here’s a must-watch video on the topic.
In the interest of space, that’s enough examples, though I’ll at least mention that the Export-Import Bank is another example of a government policy that transfer money from the poor to the rich, as are agriculture subsidies.
The left’s support for a government monopoly instead of school choice also should be on this list, since the main result is to hurt kids from poor families in order to provide undeserved goodies for unionized teachers.
And don’t forget bailouts. And favors in the tax code. As well as licensing. And the green energy scam.
I could keep adding to that list, but let’s got to today’s lesson: Our friends on the left say they want to help the poor and reduce inequality. But their policies often target the kind of inequality that we shouldn’t worry about while exacerbating the form or inequality that is a problem.
John Goodman explained the consequences in a recent column.
The worst housing shortages, the most homelessness and the worst inequality exist in the cities that are the most Democratic and the most liberal.
The same relationship exists at the state level. Bigger government is correlated with more inequality.
P.S. Our leftist friends fail to appreciate that the real goal should be more economic growth, which is what’s really necessary to make life better for the less fortunate.
Actually, to be fair, they want economic growth. They just don’t support the recipe that produces that outcome. I’m not sure why, but maybe Margaret Thatcher was right and they want bad outcomes for the rich (other than their cronies) more than they want good outcomes for the poor.
December 17 Addendum: Let’s add regulation to our list of statist policies that cause inequality by unjustly lining the pockets of higher-income people.
A. Barton Hinkle explains for Reason. Here are a few excerpts from his column.
…doctors, who make up a good part of America’s richest 1 percent, extract rents from the public through other government policies. One of those is licensure: “The law specifies tasks that only licensed doctors can perform, even though nurses are capable of performing them.” …Health care is an extreme example, but upward redistribution of wealth through government action affects nearly every sector of the economy. In most states, direct sales of new automobiles to consumers are forbidden–you have to buy through a dealership. Roughly a third of all occupations now require a government license–up from only 5 percent of all occupations a few decades ago.
We already knew that regulation hurts poor people, so the fact that some regulations help rich people is a very perverse form of symmetry.
[…] you can understand why I get upset when the rich and powerful use the coercive power of government to line their pockets at the […]
[…] you can understand why I get upset when the rich and powerful use the coercive power of government to line their pockets at the […]
[…] it becomes disgusting and morally offensivewhen it takes money from the less fortunate and gives it to those with more wealth and income. And […]
[…] it becomes disgusting and morally offensive when it takes money from the less fortunate and gives it to those with more wealth and income. And […]
[…] about poverty reduction rather than pushing for coerced equality, as well as my two-part series (here and here) on how statist policies produce the immoral type of […]
[…] Very true. […]
[…] of government policy (bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, industrial policy, cronyism, etc) that produce unjust forms of […]
[…] of government policy (bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, industrial policy, cronyism, etc) that produce unjust forms of […]
[…] of government policy (bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, industrial policy, cronyism, etc) that produce unjust forms of […]
[…] of government policy (bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, industrial policy, cronyism, etc) that produce unjust forms of […]
[…] I’m a bit of a bleeding-heart libertarian, I then took the opportunity to condemn various forms of cronyism (such as the corrupt TARP […]
[…] necessarily mean the poor taking from the rich. Yes, that’s a big part of it, but there are all sorts of government programs that burden lower-income and middle-class people in order to line the pockets of the […]
[…] some people get richer faster than other people get richer in a genuine free market, it’s morally disgusting for politicians to support protectionist policies that are especially harmful to the […]
[…] like when politicians mistreat rich people, but I get far more upset when they do things that impose disproportionate costs on poor people. This is one of the reasons I especially dislike government flood insurance, Social Security, […]
[…] moral of the story is that protectionism generates undeserved riches for the friends of politicians while lowering the […]
[…] like when politicians mistreat rich people, but I get far more upset when they do things that impose disproportionate costs on poor people. This is one of the reasons I don’t like government flood insurance, Social Security, the […]
[…] The federal government’s flood insurance program gives people – often the very rich, which galls me – an incentive to build where the risk of flooding and hurricanes is very […]
[…] left pursue policies that undermine prosperity and actually exacerbate inequality. I put together some examples back in 2015, and now it’s time to expand that […]
[…] folks on the left pursue policies that undermine prosperity and actually exacerbate inequality. I put together some examples back in 2015, and now it’s time to expand that […]
[…] I’ll write in the near future about why the federal government shouldn’t be involved in disaster relief. But I wanted to specifically highlight the wretched impact of subsidized flood insurance because it is such a perverse example of how government promotes unjust inequality. […]
[…] Indeed, I hope most conservatives would agree with my Bleeding Heart Rule. […]
[…] the extend that some upper-income taxpayers obtain unearned income via government intervention, then they may lose out from economic liberalization. Ethical rich people, however, will earn more […]
Is this not perfectly obvious?
[…] a few other statist obstacles to empowering the disadvantaged here, including a brief discussion of how land-use regulations harm the poor. He quotes Leigh Franke of […]
[…] I guess we can use this data as additional evidence of how statist policies cause inequality. […]
[…] But in all likelihood, there may be some undesirable reasons for this data, such as Fannie-Freddie subsidies and restrictionist zoning policies. […]
[…] But in all likelihood, there may be some undesirable reasons for this data, such as Fannie-Freddie subsidies and restrictionist zoning policies. […]
[…] explained last year that certain left-wing fiscal, regulatory, and monetary policies actually harm the poor and help […]
[…] I’ve written about how statist policies help the rich and hurt the poor. […]
[…] written about how statist policies help the rich and hurt the poor. And I’ve also pontificated on the destructive and foolish subsidies *** dispensed by […]
[…] written about how statist policies help the rich and hurt the poor. And I’ve also pontificated on the destructive and foolish subsidies dispensed by the execrable […]
[…] I’ve written about how statist policies help the rich and hurt the poor. […]
[…] can unjustly line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor. Make sure to check out the updated version of that […]
Dan,
That John Goodman column contains a link to a satire piece on Clinton charging 500K for a speech. This kind of error hurts his credibility (his confirmation bias lured him in and he didn’t do his due diligence; what else did he get wrong?; shameful) and your credibility as well.
I recommend you remove that link.
[…] can unjustly line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor. Make sure to check out the updated version of that […]
[…] Here are some examples of how statist policies increase […]
[…] ⇒⇒⇒ Daniel Mitchell također vrlo dobar u novom postu o nejednakosti i učinku etatističkih politika na povećanje nejednakosti. […]
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
He’s right. You find Big Government handing out ordinary people’s money hand-over-fist to the rich friends of Big Government. It’s a outrage!
When everybody must work to serve everyone else, nobody wants to work… at least not with enough enthusiasm to outcompete the rest of the world and keep the American middle class in the world’s top four percent.
This is what the American voter-lemming has failed to understand and so he’s well on his way to becoming a member of the true middle class: The world middle class.
With a secular growth deficit of two percent compared to world average, America will be a middle income country by the latter part of the twenty first century. And its middle class will earn the middle worldwide income of 2065. Of course , the malaise of below par growth will be felt much sooner. It is already been felt.
The social capital of American voters has crossed the tipping point. The American electorate has crossed the rubicon towards worldwide mediocrity. Past the tipping point, several vicious cycles will dramatically accelerate America’s decline.
As wealth is increasingly allocated by political means, through pitchfork democracy, rather than free markets, the proportion of crony wealth will increase. This will make voters hate exceptional people even more, increasing their envy and seeking further redistribution through the political process.
A prosperity death spiral. America’s prosperity leadership in the world will implode. American GDP will be but a small fraction of worldwide wealth. America’s geopolitical importance will inevitably follow suit. This is already evident today as America desperately tries to hang on to its role of world policeman as American percentage of world GDP keeps shrinking. Obama is at fault not because of his military policy, but because of his economic one. At a time when America was already sliding into statism, he set in motion even more permanent slow growth policies.
All long term power derives from economic power. And in a society where everyone must serve everybody, the primary fuel of prosperity, the enthusiasm to outcompete your peers worldwide is missing. Decline becomes the deterministic destiny.
100% (without reading all the comment), see Folsom on the difference between political entrepreneurs who make money by deals in smoke-filled back rooms and market entrepreneurs who do it by offering what people want at a price they like. http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Robber-Barons-Business/dp/0963020315
[…] Reposted from International Liberty […]
With all due respect to Dennis Prager, illegal sources of income may nevertheless be moral. An example would be the money used to reimburse Underground Railroad “station masters” and “conductors” which was very moral.
Reblogged this on James' Ramblings and commented:
Reblogging for future reference.