Duke University professor Dan Ariely reports in “Americans
Want to Live in a Much More Equal Country (They Just Don’t Realize It)”
that a wide discrepancy exists between Americans perceptions of wealth
distribution, their ideal preferences for wealth distribution, and the actual
distribution of wealth (Atlantic, August 2, 2012).
The chart below summarizes his findings. The actual distribution of
wealth shown is from economic research (Wolff, E. N. (2010). "Recent
Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the
Middle-Class Squeeze--an Update to 2007." Levy Economics Institute of Bard
College). The estimated actual and ideal preferences are from a random survey
of 5,522 Americans conducted using widely accepted research techniques. Respondents
replied without knowing to which quintile they belonged. Quintiles divide the
population into five groups with an equal number of people in each group.
The two poorest quintiles have so little wealth that the chart makes guessing
their wealth difficult. The actual wealth of the poorest quintile is 0.1% of
total U.S. wealth; the actual wealth of the second poorest quintile is 0.2% of
total U.S. wealth. The other bars permit reasonable visual interpretation.
Notably, the preferred ideal distribution of wealth for the bottom four
quintiles exceeds the estimated wealth of each quintile and dwarfs the actual
wealth of each quintile. Only for the wealthiest quintile is this reversed:
actual wealth (84% of total U.S. wealth) dwarfs both estimated and ideal
wealth. Importantly, the differences between Democratic and Republican
respondents with respect to the ideal wealth distribution were less than 4% for
any quintile. Similarly, there were no significant differences among
respondents based on age, gender, or income.
Clearly, Americans do not live in a society with the economic equality
they would prefer and, equally clearly, Americans do not realize how skewed the
distribution of wealth actually is. This study suggests to me that the U.S. sits
on the precipice of an economic and social divide that if not soon bridged will
permanently divide the nation into a society of haves and have-nots.
What to do about the problem is unclear. Here are some of Ariely’s reflections
on the discrepancies his study revealed:
As for what this
means about changing the level of inequality, which from our study seems almost
unanimously objectionable, there are essentially two paths: education and
taxation. Improving education works in a sense to change the input into the
economy--better-educated workers are more resourceful and employable, and can
move up the economic ladder. Changing taxation deals with the output--those who
prosper pay more into the system than those without the same benefits. Our
study doesn't tell us anything about which of these two approaches to reducing
inequality would be preferable, but in practical terms, bridging the huge gap
between what we currently have and what we want to have would require a mixture
of both.
The upcoming election seems unlikely to provide additional clarity, much
less substantial progress, on the inequality of wealth distribution. Americans
seem to want less government interference in their lives, desire fewer government
transfers of wealth, are probably willing to raise taxes on the very wealthy,
but have not found broadly successful programs or policies to fix a broken education
system. Yet even where polls show that agreement exists among voters, U.S.
legislative bodies, especially the national Congress, have proven unable to
make real progress.
The study underscores for me the importance of people of faith engaging
the political process. I’m convinced that Jesus would not fully identify with
either the Republican or Democratic parties. Elements of the typical Republican
agenda (e.g., personal responsibility and small government that allows maximum
personal freedom) and the typical Democratic agenda (e.g., concern for the most
vulnerable and healthcare for all) resonate with me as agendas consistent with Jesus’
message. Conversely, elements of both parties’ agendas and their preoccupation
with fundraising, special interests, and single-issue politics at the cost of
the general welfare strike me as objectionable to Jesus. Especially in states
in which to vote in a primary one must belong to a party, I think that Jesus would
affiliate with a party to give himself another opportunity to vote. But I think
that issues and not party, love for all of his neighbors and not self-interest,
would motivate and shape his political engagement. Perhaps we would do well to
do likewise.
No comments:
Post a Comment