|
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Deservingness and Distributive Policy
It's a slow August day in DC. So here's a case for why a conception of deservingness based on work, contribution, and family ought to be at the center of arguments challenging inequality.
It's Necessary: We live in an ideological world where the distribution of resources is determined by choice and by perceptions of deservingness. Americans let rich people stay rich because they think they've earned it. To be sure, American political structures have barriers to redistributive policy. But by and large, if the large majority of voters, who aren't rich, strongly believed extreme inequality was unjust, they would have done something about it. They haven't. The perception that your income is due to your input needs to change.
Some recent policies have reduced poverty, i.e. SCHIP, the EITC, and the Child Tax Credit. I imagine arguments about need justified them. But if the goal is to end poverty and create a more equal society, a stronger argument has to be made. People deserve a whole lot more than they need. And the subtext of these policies is that people deserve to participate in these programs- they work, they're just kids, or they're parents trying to take care of their kids.
It's Persuasive: A convincing case about deservingness can be made with economic data and observation.
The poor work. Books like Nickle and Dimed, No Shame in My Game, and Off the Books have shown to a mass audience that poor people work and are skilled, that they're often getting ripped off, and they're operating in a different opportunity structure than everyone else. They aren't being properly rewarded.
Furthermore, other "have-nots" who aren't technically poor but make around or below the median wage are more productive than ever but aren't making much more money. So many studies have been done on this topic it's absurd. People are working hard, they're contributing more, yet they aren't getting a share of the return to increased productivity. On the flip side, wealthy people are getting far more than their productivity and effort entitles them.
One benefit of this approach is its simplicity. The goal ought to be bringing the median wage to where it would have been if it had tracked productivity growth over the last three decades. In the 1960s there was an acceptable level of inequality in pay scales, though not between races and genders.
Another plus: it could help build a coalition of the middle and lower classes. The CAP poverty plan, for example, is well-served by its vision of "progressive universalism," insofar as it doesn't exclusively target poor people or one race and neglect other have-nots. But it's still a vision shaped by perceptions of need instead of reciprocity and fairness.
And one caveat: some progressives don't want to talk about deservingness as regards the lower and middle class. There are people in need who aren't living up to their end of the bargain, for a variety of reasons. It'd be folly to exclude them entirely from new opportunities or basic needs programs, but someone has to draw a line somewhere. I don't know where that line is, and I find it difficult to speculate where it might be. Someone with a stronger stomach could probably do it.
Progressives might also be hesitant because they think they'll lose that argument. Hopefully this post will remove some doubts.
Posted by Matt Lewis
|