Without comment, I offer up a position paper by Billy Gunn in juxtapose to
the eloquence of the ex-slaughterman
"It seems that it is the equality of the individual amid the seething mass
that defines the status and justice of the society and the value system of
the culture." -- an ex-slaughterman
"In my opinion awarding people based on merit is a good thing. It encourages
motivation and innovation." -- Billy Gunn
Student Pages
Position Paper: The Inequality Express
By Billy Gunn
In the article "The Inequality Express," Barry Bluestone, the Frank L.
Boyden Professor of Political Economy at the University of
Massachusetts/Boston, tries to paint a bleak picture of U.S. workers
suffering a declining standard of living. Bluestone cites Michael Young's
1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033, in which it is predicted
that a growing inequality in income distribution would spark a rebellion in
2034. Bluestone then states that although we have not seen a revolution yet,
Young's prophecy seems uncomfortably prescient. He goes on to offer three
trends he thinks are consistent with Young's forecast. First, the
distribution of earnings increasingly reflects the distribution of formal
education in the workplace. Second, the earnings gap between the educated
and not-so-well educated is increasing. Third, the standard of living of a
large part of the workforce, especially workers with less than a college
degree, has steadily declined. The article continues on, citing various
sources of income and earnings data to support the arguments.
My position towards the article is of disagreement. I do not disagree with
the figures represented, but I disagree with the author's interpretation of
those figures. He fails to define what a decreasing standard of living means
or even why the fact that a high school dropout earning almost three times
less than a college graduate is a problem. My question to the author is,
what is wrong with a meritocracy? In my opinion awarding people based on
merit is a good thing. It encourages motivation and innovation.
The impression that I get from the article is that the author is a
communist. To suggest that there is a problem because a male high school
dropout is making 18 percent less at the end of the 1980's while men having
completed a master's degree are making nine percent more is ludicrous. Why
should someone who is not even motivated enough to complete high school be
rewarded with pay that is anywhere near that of someone having completed a
masters? Now, there are individuals that drop out of high school and go on
to make very comfortable lives for themselves. That is because they are hard
working and motivated or just lucky. But, to drop out of high school and
resign ones self to mediocrity merits no reward in and of itself.
I want to point out again Bluestone's third trend. He says, "The real
standard of living of a large portion of the workforce—particularly those
with less than a college degree—has steadily and sharply declined." Sharply
declined in what way? He later goes on to say, "more than half of all U.S.
workers—those with no more than a high school diploma, are extreme losers."
The author needs to quit reading so many financial analysis reports and get
out and talk to some U.S. workers. Most of my immediate family, with just
high school diplomas, is doing very well for themselves. In actuality the
bulk of the extreme losers in this country are lazy and unmotivated. I
myself do not have a college degree yet I make more money than most college
grads I know in the same age group. That is because I was very interested in
obtaining a certain high demand skill and I followed through with it. When I
came home from work I would pick up a book on networking or some other
similar topic and would read. I have been doing that for two years and
continue to do it now. Hard work and motivation have paid off for me and
will continue to pay off.
One of the solutions the author offers to correct the earnings inequality is
regulation of the labor market. To me, that is not a very popular idea to
spread around. It seems like most Americans are asking for less government
regulation. Another idea that is offered are tax-and-transfer programs. So,
he wants to take more pay from successful Americans to increase the welfare
checks of high school dropouts. I know that sounds harsh, but that is how I
interpret the article. The author is trying to make successful people feel
bad for being successful and I think that is wrong.
Bluestone continually mentions the decline of the standard of living for
non-college grads without offering examples. I recently saw a news broadcast
where the reporter was questioning an elderly man in a soup line. The
reporter asked the man if he was poor. The man replied yes. He asked the man
if he had a home. The man replied yes, and that he had a stove, and a TV
with cable. Next the reporter interviewed a single mother of three. She
worked part time as a secretary, was on welfare, and living in a two bedroom
government subsidized apartment. She had a stove, a frost free refrigerator,
and cable TV. Her children never went to bed without a meal. I call that
living within your means. If I am to go on to get a master's degree and
become the CTO of a large company should I have my pay taxed significantly
higher so that that woman can get a bigger television, or maybe a satellite
dish, or name brand clothes for her and her children. I don't think so. In
this country each of us is responsible for our current situations and we
each have the ability to improve or worsen those situations. That is what
makes capitalism and the U.S. great. Reference: Bluestone, Barry. "The
Inequality Express." (Cited in "Annual Editions Sociology 98/99."
Dushkin/Mcgraw-Hill 1998) .
Tom Walker
Bowen Island, BC
604 947 2213
