As we approach the November presidential election, I see a greater number of facebook posts from young friends decrying the economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. So I want to bring the counterargument saying that parity as a goal, has issues too.

I find it most amusing, that most conservatives will claim to believe in a God of justice and love, but also believe that economically, Darwin was right – it is a game of the survival of the fittest. I find it equally ludicrous that most liberals who disavow any religion or God think that the best economic system is one of “enforced parity”, that some outside force should limit how rich the rich should get. This amuses me mostly, because those who believe that Darwin was right, should also be “OK” with opportunistic economic systems in which the poor are crushed, and the wealthy increase without bound, while those who believe in a God of justice and love should find such an opportunistic system distasteful or simply unacceptable.

Mind you, these are broad generalizations, and they don’t really get to “why” conservatives and liberals support the economic policies that they do, which is potentially completely different than what they actually believe.

But let’s talk about parity. The word means some form of equality or fairness. Equality is easy, but fairness requires some human policy. Who decides what is fair or unfair. Of course, everyone does. And of course everyone defines it differently. So there is no such thing. It is illusory. We as parents have all taught our children that “the world is not fair”. Which doesn’t mean that we don’t want it to be fair, we as adults just recognize that “shit happens”. We also recognize that most of the time, when someone claims that something is not “fair” what they actually mean is one of the following statements:

1) Someone didn’t play by some established set of rules that I was appearing to follow.’
2) Some force that I didn’t anticipate changed the game and I found myself at a disadvantage.
3) The result I hoped for now appears out of reach, unachievable.
4) Someone else found a way to gain an advantage over me.
5) My plan has been thwarted by a move by an opponent, and I have no means of countering.
6) I am unhappy because things are not going “my way”.

There are three key words in those statements that I want to highlight when talking about parity.

Rules

When we are talking about parity, we essentially are talking about people following the same set of rules. When the “rules” apply equally to all parties, that is a form of parity. When some “break” the rules, or ignore them, or find ways to invalidate them, or exceptions, or loopholes we cry unfair. In fact what is unfair is that we didn’t do the same thing. What we are saying is “I was stupid and thought that by following the rules that I could win”.

Hope

Implied in the game is the hope of victory. If there were no hope of victory the game would be a fool’s errand, and most of us would “give up”. Game Over! Take our ball and go home. It doesn’t matter what the game is, it doesn’t matter what we consider victory – if we realize that no matter how we play, we can’t win – we are pretty much done. Hope is necessary to motivate us to keep playing the game.

Advantage

Advantage is when one or another players finds a way to ensure a better probability of victory. Sometimes it is through manipulation of the rules, sometimes it is through growing their own capacity for play. If you can play faster, or longer than your opponent, you can often win. Sometimes we out plan or maneuver our opponent to gain advantage, sometimes we simply play harder. Sometimes to gain advantage, we change the game itself inventing new rules as we go along.

This sports analogy, is all well and good, but what we are really talking about is economics and wealth. While the occupy movement has been complaining about how unfair it is, that the 1% have sooo much more than the 99%, I want to ask a question. If you knew that no matter how hard you played the game, no matter how hard you tried, no matter what you did the end result would be a draw – how hard would you play? How hard would you practice? If win or lose your compensation would be the same – how hard would you try, play, practice?

Possibility & Opportunity

What I am talking about is opportunity. It is the possibility that any of us can transition from the 99% to the 1% or even to the 80% that motivates us. It is the possibility that our kids can grow up “better off” than we did that motivates us. It is the opportunity to grow economically from our success, from our victory that motivates us to play hard, or even to play at all.

The Rule of the Gold

As kids we all learned “The Golden Rule” – which is that we are supposed to treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated. As adults we have learned “The Rule of the Gold” which simply stated says that he who has the gold, gets to make the rules. This has been true in every society, in every government, in every nation, in every economic system. This is the rule of play. Those who have use what they have to gain and maintain advantage. Those who have not, have to find other ways to gain advantage.

In the U.S.A. we live in a society that tries hard to create and maintain equal opportunity. We use that phrase, to mean that we have adjusted the rules to prevent people from being socially and economically disadvantaged because of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or lifestyle choices. We haven’t yet altered the rules to prevent people from being socially and economically disadvantaged because of stupidity, laziness, or insanity.

What we have in the current policy rhetoric is a sense that we need to “dampen” the natural tendency of the “system” to “get crazy in the tails”. This means that we want to reduce the tendency of the very wealthy to become even more wealthy, and the very poor to become even more poor. The unfortunate thing is that the Rule of the Gold interferes with this need, because those who already have an advantage, have a tremendous ability to influence the rhetoric.

History

I want to take a moment to remind us where we all came from. In the good old USA, unless you are a “First American” or descended from Negro slaves, there is a pretty darned good chance your ancestors came here looking for a better opportunity than wherever they were from. The men and women who founded our country were completely sold on the idea of “free enterprise” meaning that anyone had the opportunity to better their social and or economic position. Generations of people have immigrated to our land, believing that this same opportunity would be afforded to them. Given that people are still immigrating here en mass, looking for the same opportunity to this day I am convinced that our founding fathers had a good idea.

Our founding fathers were primarily afraid of one thing: Tyranny – the ability of one (or few) to wield power over many without constraint. In their day it was inconceivable that an individual who was not a monarch or heir would be able to amass a fortune that would rival the treasury of small countries. They built an economic engine that allowed the common man the opportunity to live like kings.

Never mind for the moment that those same men, restricted the opportunity for some classes (Native Americans, Negro slaves and women) for the better part of a century or more. That is history and it is deplorable. My point is that the descendants of those people now have roughly the same opportunity as everyone else. That is not to say that the societies formed around those groups have appropriated those opportunities the same way.

So the question that I will ask is why? Why have native Americans (collectively) and black Americans remained (on the whole) disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population? Why have other groups who started the last century as new immigrants at the bottom of the food chain advanced more quickly, gained advantage and caught up with or surpassed those who were advantaged long before them?

Assimilation

I believe that one of the key indicators of an immigrant or underclass group’s ability to gain advantage is their ability or willingness to “assimilate”. In the broadest sense, assimilation means to “blend in”, to identify with the population at large, then to identify with a specific subgroup. In the specific sense, it means that individuals from within the subgroup have to adopt the behaviors, morals, and attitudes of the larger population, so that they are not considered “different” and excluded from advantages.

One of my grandfathers came to this country from eastern Europe in the wake of the Russian revolution, and settled in a part of Chicago that was largely Irish. He changed his name from Berkowitz to Berk – to fit in with the local population to gain some economic advantage. Another relative had their name changed from Speigelstein to Stone at Ellis Island as they immigrated to this country in the early twentieth century. For decades, immigrants fled their homeland, arrived here, grouped in ghetto’s (islands of difference) and slowly learned and adopted the culture of their new environment. Then they dispersed from their ghettos, having been assimilated into the population at large. Maybe it took a generation, sometimes two – but for most immigrant families, by the third generation, their descendants are much more “American” than they are whatever their ethnic background is.

The funny thing is, as a nation of immigrants, one of our cultural norms is to “identify” our ancestral ethnicity as if it were actually a part of us and to celebrate that. In fact, it is perfectly OK to be Italian, German, Russian, Nigerian, Chinese, Korean, Bangladeshi, Bolivian, Dutch or English, as long as you ACT American and speak “good” English.

What is not tolerated in our nation of immigrants, is coming here, and wanting to make this place more like where you came from. You came here to get away from where you came from. Descendants of the immigrants from the last two centuries are somewhat indignant when new immigrants from Hispanic or Middle Eastern countries expect signs and paperwork in Spanish or Arabic to make it “easier” for them to “get by”. Here are two reasons why that is a bad idea. First, it reduces the motivation to assimilate, to learn “good” English. And second, it takes resources away from serving the larger population. The larger population sees it as giving advantage to the immigrant classes, in a way that allows them power separate from the larger population.

Difference

Equal opportunity is a funny thing. Human nature is such that we cooperate with those we deem “like us” and we compete with those we deem “different”. It is why immigrants struggle, it is why religion produces sectarianism, it is why we have racial discrimination. It is somehow part of human nature to tolerate our own kind, and despise other kinds. But even when we are grossly homogeneous, we compete with our own kind. We compete for status and for opportunity. So then within our kind, we assume equal opportunity – based on capability (not exclusive of capability, nor artificially adjusted), such that those who are more capable, have a greater chance of success. But when we in our day talk about equal opportunity, we get confused because it is equal opportunity across “kinds”, enforced such that we cannot discriminate by kind. The thought is that when we cannot discriminate by kind, we can only discriminate by capability. However, oft times it is thought of as equalizing opportunity for those who are less capable. That is not the intent, nor was it ever the intent – but is often spoke thus, by those who want to be “entitled” to opportunities that they do not have the capabilities to realize on their own.

Hope and Motivation

With some equality of opportunity (less discrimination by kind, and more by capability), there is hope that any individual can grow his capabilities, and realize the opportunities at hand. That hope is that one would not be denied those opportunities because of factors of “kind”, race, religious beliefs, gender, ethnicity, age, etc. The hope is cause for motivation, for individuals are motivated to increase their capabilities, to grow skills, to learn, to compete in the market place, to become successful. When “equal” opportunity is read as not allowing discrimination by capability, then the motivation to increase individual capabilities is displaced. We learn to “work the system” for benefits and opportunities, because increasing our capabilities is no longer a viable way to gain advantage.

Capability

We often hear the large salaries and compensation packages of executives decried as “unfair”, or “out of balance”. I would not disagree. I think they are out of balance. I feel the same thing about entertainers or athletes. Yet I don’t hear the occupy movement complaining about that. I don’t hear the liberal media, or liberal politicians complaining about the large compensation packages for media personalities and celebrities. They only complain about the compensation packages for corporate executives. Yet, to my knowledge few celebrities run companies that employ thousands of people (providing opportunities for others). Few athletes create economic opportunities for others. So why do we complain about one, but not the other. Its clear to me that the media have their own vested interest in their own economic power, they would never publish stories complaining about their own bloated salaries. Of course, while the media tends to favor the liberal political candidates, they also have their interest in retaining that favor. So what does this have to do with capability? We understand the capabilities of athletes and media personalities (actors, broadcasters, etc) we see them, and we “adore” them. Through our direct patronage, we pay their salaries, by watching their games, television shows and movies. We also understand that for every one of them that “makes it big”, there are hundreds that “make it small”. These salaries and compensations are not necessarily proportionally fair according to ability, but they are according to “earnings”.

Worth

If we are willing to pay $75 for a concert ticket, then it is “worth” it. If a corporation is willing to pay $2 million for a 30 second add during the super bowl, then it is “worth” it. If we are willing to pay $150 per month for cable, then it is “worth” it. Things are “worth” whatever we are willing to pay. I personally don’t patronize sports very often, because watching a hockey game is not “worth” the cost of two $50 dollar tickets and $20 for parking. That is the way a market economy works. Things are worth, whatever we, collectively, are willing to pay. Whether that worth adds up to hundreds or millions of dollars, individuals who are involved in earning that worth are entitled to some share, in accordance with their contribution to the earning. My personal opinion is that we will know that a recession is a depression when the price of sports tickets drops by 50%, because people have prioritized entertainment down in order to survive.

Opportunity

The thing is, one of the things that motivates most of us is the opportunity to “make it big”. Maybe not for ourselves, but for future generations of descendants. Most of us who have kids, have high hopes that our kids will make it big in some way. For many of us, financial success is not all that is involved in making it big. But we desire for our offspring and future descendants the same wealth and opportunity that we enjoyed, and even more. The myth in America is that anyone can grow up to be president, or Justin Bieber. If you look back into the history of the vast majority of America’s wealthy families there is a story of poor immigrants and opportunity. Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Kennedy, John D Rockefeller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Jordan, Cher, Carly Fiorina, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Barbara Streisand, Tom Cruise, Ronald Regan, Michael Douglas – they all made it big. In each of their past were humble families and ambition and drive and opportunity. Which one of us would deny our children the opportunity to “make it big”? None, I’d wager.

Responsibility

So these who make it big, don’t they have a responsibility to give back? Perhaps they do. Is this something that we want to enforce and institutionalize as a policy or is it something that we want from them as a virtue. As a nation, we tend to associate rights and responsibilities. We don’t always associate privilege with responsibility. Yet because of the cost of our current electoral process, the wealthy have more opportunity to influence the electoral process and elected officials through their campaign contributions, then do others. Thus imposing limits of the wealthy, or reducing their opportunity is somewhat like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. What incentive is there for our elected officials to pass legislation that dampens or inhibits the wealthy? Therefore, even on the liberal side, it feels like so much empty talk, because both liberals and conservatives know that politically, they are cutting their own throats by doing so.

Policy

Even if we want the policy, how should it be created – how big is big? How much is enough? How wealthy is wealthy? Our tax codes now allow the wealthy and powerful the ability to pay less taxes because of “loopholes” design explicitly for that purpose. We don’t need to change much, we should just close the loop holes. We even could have a much less graduated tax – flatter, if you will – and still generate more revenue if we simply removed all the exemptions, deductions, and credits. Lets stop playing games. Better yet, simplifying tax codes would reduce the need for IRS complexity (of course it would also put a whole generation of accounts and lawyers out of work) and save us all time and money. Let’s not “penalize” the wealthy for being successful. Let’s just even out the opportunity – put us all (except the very poor) on an equal status.

Conclusion

I believe in the market driven economy. I believe that anything is worth “what the market will bear”. This includes the job market. I learned this lesson in high school in Arkansas, when Lou Holtz as Head Football Coach of the University of Arkansas Razorbacks was paid a higher salary than then Governor Bill Clinton. Why? As my fellow Razorback fans would say, “Because he does more to enhance the reputation of the state.” Yes, things do get a little crazy in the tails – the extremes of wealth and poverty are not restricted or restrained effectively by a market economy. We all must recognize that opportunity alone is insufficient to keep “the least of these” from abject poverty. We also recognize that redistribution of wealth through entitlement programs as exist today do more to keep a permanent underclass of semi-impoverished existence, neither motivated to improve, nor content with their place in society, but always willing to elect officials that promise to continue to fund their subsistence. It is this underclass, that the liberal political left, who tend to be wealthy themselves, rely on for electoral success. Those politicians are more incented to keep that underclass in place, than they are to cut off their sources of campaign funds from the wealthy. That is why I tend to have such a low opinion of liberal political rhetoric – it sounds good until you follow the money. Of course liberals will say the same thing about conservative pols, and I won’t disagree. All of them (left and right) are more concerned with retaining and wielding power, than the ideology that they espouse. For them, Ideology is a means to an end. And that is why none of the current political leaders would have ever been counted among the founding fathers. None of our current crop are willing to be revolutionaries, willing to be tried for treason if the revolution fails, they have no ideological passion, no virtue, and no soul. They are just useless tools of the party power brokers behind the scenes. Both primary parties are guilty of soulless and passionless pandering to their constituencies, rather than passionately and patriotically standing up for the greater good.