A distinction needs to be made between “ascriptive inequality”, the inequality that is passed on from generation to generation in the form of the degree to which a child’s wealth is determined by her parents’ wealth, and “achievement inequality”, the inequality that results from different people have more or less valuable attributes and thus actually contributing more or less to society because of them.
They are closely related, but they are distinct. For instance, a bazillionaire who passes most of her bazillions on to a good-for-nothing son is perpetuating ascriptive inequality: the son has to try less, has an easier time, and doesn’t need to contribute as much of value in order to live an exceedingly comfortable life. On the other hand, two employees entering the same company at the same time, one of whom works hard, does good work, and is promoted, and the other of whom is lazy, works little, and is fired or demoted, is a case of achievement inequality: the former is better off because he works harder.
Aspects that are difficult (though not impossible) to parse, are things like education. Certain schools look fondly upon legacy, so the hard work of one’s parents makes it easier to attend a given institution. Bu insofar as attending that school improves your network of contacts, so you actually are more valuable and may contribute more to society. Here, ascription and achievement are intertwined.
This distinction is significant in recent political and economic debate, because it seems that the two sides are often talking past each other when they talk about inequality: one side will say “inequality is unfair”, meaning inequality of opportunity and of equal pay for equal work, while the other side says “inequality is fair”, meaning people that do more should be rewarded more.
The two statements aren’t mutually exclusive, and I think both sides can agree to both when they are separated into separate issues. Do we not want to encourage those who add greatly to our society by rewarding people for hard work and valuable innovation? And do we not want a system that enables the best and brightest to add as much as they can, regardless of their family origin? We shouldn’t hold the sins of the parent against the child, but we should hold a persons actions against them.
It seems that often the difference in political/economic theory is just a difference of emphasis.
I think it’s easy to see what you describe as ascriptive inequality, it’s also easy to see many ways to improve efficiency by- say- giving a good education to everyone equally…
The problem is that our society is not designed to produce or provide for the public. The idealism is that each must produce for themselves.
This of course is a double standard when it comes to economic debate, where capitalism is sold as being good for all, but it tends to venture off into ideology land as do many other political theories.
the all boats rise metaphor is good, but what if you don;t have a boat? what if you are being attacked by another boat?
Not to argue against capitalism, but it gives you the right to build the biggest battleship you can, and sharing the wealth in the way you propose would only anger those who initially “worked hard” to get where they are…
Humans are pack animals, and it is by having a pack that we have achieved what we have. In that sense, we are designed to produce or provide for the public, just not on the scale we do it today. Still, society has taken great advantage of economies of scale, and I would argue that it’s in our interest to continue to do so. However, the best way to do that is probably to allow people to achieve differently based on their contribution.
Is reinforcing the mean a bad thing from a societal perspective? Guilds ensured that all items available were of a certain quality. In that system, you lose out on items of incredibly high quality, sure. But you also eliminate items of incredibly poor quality, or more often, items of poor quality in general. What should we care about? Do we respect the range offered, good and bad or do we want a consistent quality?
How well do guilds fare over time? It seems like anything that discourages high performers will also discourage innovation, causing a consistent but stagnant offering. I would argue that the presence of high performers are an asset in the long term in a way that low performers are not a liability: high performers that innovate not only create something new and useful, they create an essentially infinitely replicable asset in the form of the knowledge they produce in their quest. Low performers might hurt people in the near term, producing low-quality items that are likely to malfunction and there is a cost associated with that malfunction. But the contribution of high performers balances that out (in that their items function better in the near term), in addition to their long term contribution in the form of innovation.
That’s a sketch I just pulled together, I haven’t thought too much about the virtues of consistency versus the best items available. It might be that consistency discourages low quality items more than it does high quality items, in which case it would be even benefit.
Guilds tend to do quite well over time because they are staunchly and by definition uncompetitive. If there is a shoe-maker’s guild in town, that is who you can buy shoes from, period. As soon as competition gets introduced, things change dramatically.
It is a completely different model, with its own attendant advantages and disadvantages. One of those disadvantages is that innovation is pretty much absent, or at least so slow as to appear absent. But is that a bad thing? I’m serious, think about it. Do we need to engage in cycles where shoes can have air pumped into them, or special gels at the heels, alternating between the breathability of an all mesh shoe and the sturdiness of an all leather shoe? And that isn’t even scratching the surface.
Look at cell phones and portable music devices. Not only did we not realize that we “need” these things until they have been invented and advertised ad infinitum, but we also need the newest, the fanciest. I can’t just call, I have to text. I can’t just text, I have to photo-text (which requires a camera in the phone). I can’t just photo-text, I need to be able to write e-mails with advanced HTML tags. I can’t just write e-mails, I need to be able to surf the net . . . and so on. Likewise, cassettes aren’t good enough, we need CDs. CD players with fancy no-skipping technology. MP3 players. MP3 players that are white and shiny. MP3 players that can connect to the internet. MP3 players that can immediately recognize any song played anywhere . . . and so on.
That isn’t to say that the progress and development afforded by the capitalist model is bad, it has a lot going for it. I’m certainly a fan of those doo-dads. But are they really important, are they really necessary?