At a park last week, I happened to overhear a group of senior women sharing stories about their childhoods. They had grown up in the 1930s and ‘40s and were reflecting on the economic conditions they had experienced as children. There were stories about hand-me-down clothing, vegetable gardens, one pair of shoes and maybe two dresses per year.
The group heartily agreed with the woman who said that she didn’t realize she was poor until she entered junior high school and discovered that some kids had more than one pair of shoes and two changes of clothing. She told of the time she stayed overnight at a schoolmate’s house, and was amazed to have a breakfast that included eggs and butter. At her house, breakfast was usually very meager, sometimes little more than coffee and crackers.
Today, in the streets across America there is sharp focus on disproportionate wealth — condemned as an “imbalance.” As the standard of living for many Americans has precipitously declined in recent years, and the nation remains mired in economic malaise, there is a growing, acute awareness that the few have so much more than the many.
But, that situation has existed everywhere throughout human history, and no economic or political system, imposed or accepted, has been successful in realizing economic egalitarianism. Unless or until human nature evolves past competitive self-interest, there will always be varying levels of status, wealth and privilege.
Furthermore, wealth imbalance and poverty are relative and subjective. When does anyone have too much relative to someone else? Who determines what wealth “balance” is and how is it objectively calculated? Those old women in the park didn’t think they were poor until they saw greater affluence.
The real issue is not who has what, but how it is acquired. The real issue is fair opportunity for everyone to attain the standard of living they desire. The complaint in the streets today is that America no longer has a fair playing field. Opportunity and justice are for those who can afford it because government is owned by the established elite.
That complaint is arguably valid. In the years leading up to the 2007 collapse of the mortgage market that precipitated the worst global economic calamity since the Great Depression, the financial industry successfully lobbied state and federal legislatures to defeat regulatory measures that would have curtailed the reckless lending practices that induced the collapse.
Between 2000 and 2006, only 5 percent of the 19 major congressional bills aimed at tightening financial regulations passed. The money spent on lobbying by the financial institutions most affected by such regulation is clearly associated with the outcome of those bills. The intensity of lobbying efforts is directly correlated to the legislators voting against regulation and for deregulation.
While the disproportionate influence of the 1 percent on government is undeniable, the 99 percent should keep in mind that no system of justice or economics can guarantee that everyone will realize their dreams. Just as some horses run faster than others, there will always be winners and also-rans.
But, after 50 years of economic progress, Americans in general have come to expect perpetually increasing affluence. What is really unnerving many of the 99 percent is that the standard of living for most Americans may have peaked and will slip to some lower level.
It may. However, austerity is also relative and doesn’t necessarily mean enduring misery, but it may mean recalibrating expectations and practicing reasonable frugality. Narcissistic status seeking is not limited to the rich. Among the 99 percent are people whose aspirational acquisitiveness exceeded their financial means and contributed to the current economic disaster. Smaller homes, older cars and fewer luxuries might be hard adjustments for those who have had more, or expect to have it all now, but not for those who appreciate what they have while they strive for more.
The striving is what is important for a healthy, vibrant economy and a relatively content nation. Entrepreneurial endeavor, invention and creativity are diminished and discouraged where opportunity is limited. In collusion with elected officials, agents of selfish greed have altered the course of government and manipulated policymakers to tilt the economic playing field in favor of the few.
The task at hand is recreating conditions that allow for anyone who aspires to achieve a better life the fair chance to do so. That task starts with cleaning up government, the referee that should ensure that all players have a fair shot at Park Place.
Fairness requires ethical, effective government focused on impartially applying sensible rules with minimal interference on personal freedom. It means keeping the weasels out of the chicken coop. Campaign contributions and influence peddling must be reined in. Government should be elected not purchased.
— Santa Barbara political observer Randy Alcorn can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Click here to read previous columns.
Comments
