People commonly cite “Inequality” as justification for all kinds of governing decisions (political governments at multiple levels, and private corporate governance).
Inequality exists, and no governing body can completely “solve” this. Let’s strive to think clearly and carefully about inequality – its sources, its effects, and what can be done.
Note: I’m going to stick with the word ‘inequality’ because it’s measurable, whereas the popular word ‘equity’ is highly subjective when used to describe socioeconomic conditions. As for the “It’s not fair, and that’s wrong” response… yes, much in life is unfair. That’s reality. That’s the opportunity to work hard to make things better.
Inequality comes from multiple sources:
There are inequalities originating in natural/genetic capabilities. Men and women have different muscular structures, and different reproductive capabilities. Some people have superior hearing and vision compared to others. Mental acuity varies.
Some inequalities exist because of where and when you were born, and what your family is like. The poor in the US have a higher standard of living than the poor in many other countries, and indeed, what the poor experienced in the 1800’s in the US. Everyone reading this was born after medical advances like antibiotics were widely available. Not everyone had supportive and loving family. Individuals have little and mostly no control over these inequalities.
Many inequalities are earned through hard work! I can’t play a Chopin concerto from memory, but my daughter could because she studied and practiced piano at a high level. We saved money and invested, so after 30 years we have more financial reserves than some others. I am fluent only in English, but I have European colleagues who are fluent in five languages. Don’t we celebrate the inequality of the Olympic athletes who devoted years striving to improve on their natural talents to perform at the top level?
People are justly concerned about inequality that originates from human greed and power structures. At least a portion of this kind of inequality should be “solvable,” but our experience is mixed – partial
successes and many unintended consequences. Specifically:
- We commonly create new inequalities when we try to fix one.
- Using government power to suppress inequality often reduces competition and excellence. It generates entitlement thinking and behavior in some people, which does not bring out our best.
- Socialism consistently thins out the middle class because of the way wealth transfers and suppressing “the rich” destroys opportunities. [A question I ask my friends who think socialism would be better: “Where does money come from?” And if they say, “the government prints it” I ask, “Why then does the government bother to collect taxes?”]
I’m not against all efforts to address inequality. I’m calling us to be intelligent and thoughtful about consequences. What can we and should we pursue?
- Equality before the law.
- Respect for all fellow humans.
- Equality of opportunity.
Straightforward, hard, worthwhile. When we perfectly achieve these kinds of equality there will remain other kinds.
…
An acquaintance suggests Christianity argues for complete equality. “Your Bible says all people are children of God and loved.” Yes. Yet God gave people different gifts and assigned different roles to His children. He selected Abraham’s descendants to be His covenant people. God selected one of the twelve tribes of these descendants to be priests, and one family in that tribe (Aaron) to serve in the inner sanctuary. The New Testament letters speak about the different spiritual gifts and roles apportioned to people in the Church, even as the individuals are all equally adopted children into the family of God. The Bible speaks of both equality and inequality.
…
Our inner whiners say, “That’s not fair!” We’re deeply sensitive to perceived unfairness. The challenge with a standard of fair is use it consistently and unselfishly – especially given our flawed perceptions. You may have been raised with the “You cut, I choose” method of dividing the last slice of cake between siblings. That’s a helpful strategy because it leverages the power of our mutual relationships, and certainly better than “Heads I win, Tails you lose.”
What lies deeper than our sense of fairness is a desire for justice. This, too, can be deeply problematic. Justice is about wholeness, completeness. It’s dangerous to put adjectives like social, economic, political, and racial in front of the word justice. The sincere desire to optimize on one dimension makes us likely to create injustice (which is a form of inequality) in our wake.
…
Yes, we should work to reduce systemic inequality. Treating it as an abstract “it” or “them” isn’t effective – systems of behaviors are changed by individuals who commit to a better way. The world is more improved by your example than your opinion. Work within your sphere of influence, person to person. Collective transformed behavior of individuals will lead to changed systems (for better and for worse).
