The Costs of Inequality

Andrew Hacker has an interesting article in the New York Review of Books (h/t nc links).  I found this bit resonating with me:

The authors don’t go so far as to say that people with above-average incomes would end up better off were they to take home less money, and if greater numbers of their poor compatriots had more. But they do contend that “the benefits of greater equality seem to be shared across the vast majority of the population.” Thus one of their tables shows that those in the middle class in more egalitarian England have lower rates of cancer and diabetes than their counterparts in the United States. American children don’t perform as well academically as their peers in Finland and Belgium, where incomes are not as widely spread.
The broader argument was made by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who reputedly told one of his clerks that taxation is how we “buy civilization.” Lower Gini scores generally tell us that the business and professional classes of such countries as Norway and Denmark consent to higher tax rates because publicly provided higher education and health care and cultural amenities make for a more congenial society, in which everyone shares.
Wilkinson and Pickett teach at Britain’s University of York, and they aim for an international audience. Yet they seem to have America mainly in mind when they remark that “instead of a better society, the only thing almost everyone strives for is to better their own position.” Here too we’re into hyperbole. The United States has a large stratum of professionals who choose public service careers; indeed much, even most, of the middle class doesn’t set its sights on more than routine personal advancement. Still, it’s appropriate to ask how many of the rich care about creating a “better society.” Wealth brings higher-quality health care, private schooling, and personal pension plans, along with shielding from lines, crowds, and captious service.

While I'm sure many people find the Holmes line of thought to be patronizing, to me it seems like common sense.  In a megasociety, where small expenditures by a sizable percentage of the population will make somebody fabulously wealthy, taxation is what levels the playing field.  I also thought this chart is interesting:

Since my sister's first job was at Latham & Watkins, I know how much the people there work.  While I think that even taking this into consideration they are ridiculously overpaid, the main difference between them and myself is that I don't even know what I would do with that kind of money.  I just don't see the tradeoff between the workload and personal time as worth the money, because the money isn't going to be used in my case.  I'd rather work my 40 hours (or preferably less), farm and enjoy myself with the rest of the time.  I can understand why the folks in the above chart would be opposed to more tax burden falling on them to help out slackers like me, but if they desire to live in a decent society, it is probably necessary.  If they think they can fence themselves off from the unwashed masses, and continue to bank their massive paychecks, I think they will find out they are wrong.  Either that, or they'll lose their souls in the process.

Anyway, read the whole article.  The Gilligan part is very thought provoking.