>> June 22, 2013, 2:53 am
Greg Mankiw and the Gatsby Curve [by Paul Krugman]

A number of people have already piled on to Greg Mankiw [N. Gregory
Mankiw] over his defense of the one percent (pdf). Yet I do have
something to add.

Before I get there, a quick summary of the argument to date. Mankiw
argues that the 1 percent make so much because of their high
contribution to output — basically, that they have high marginal
productivity. So they earn what they get; and Mankiw further argues
that economic opportunity is in fact relatively if not perfectly
equal. All’s fair!

The critique falls along three lines. First, as Dean Baker notes, even
if you believe that the glittering prizes at the top of the economic
scale were fairly won, the size of those prizes is very much defined
by policy choices. We live in a society that allocates rights to
intellectual property in a way that yields huge rewards to a select
few, that taxes top incomes at a historically low rate, and so on.
Even if the game is fair, nothing says that the game has to look the
way it does.

Second, as Harold Pollack says, Mankiw is way too blithe in dismissing
inequality of opportunity. As Pollack says, what we actually see is a
very strong tendency for children of the top quintile to stay there;
and a look at how that happens suggests that there’s a lot more to
that persistence than the inheritance of good genes, which seems to be
Mankiw’s main explanation.

Third, as The Economist (!) points out, Mankiw’s attempt at a reductio
ad absurdum of Ralwsian logic — hey, if we want to equalize results,
why not enforce mandatory organ donation! — is just silly. Rawlsian
ideas are always a matter of equalization under constraints, where
these constraints involve notions of fundamental rights — that’s why
Rawls didn’t say “let’s impose perfect equality, and deal with the
incentive issue by using forced labor”. As The Economist says, we
don’t consider vandalism against property and assault against people
equivalent; the same difference makes nonsense of the income taxes =
organ donation thing.

So, what can I add? Well, Pollack quotes Mankiw’s casual defense of
equality of opportunity:

>My view here is shaped by personal experience. I was raised in a middle-class 
>family; neither of my parents were college graduates. My own children are 
>being raised by parents with both more money and more education. Yet I do not 
>see my children as having significantly better opportunities than I had at 
>their age.<

What’s wrong with this passage? It’s not just that as a winner,
someone who did extremely well, Mankiw has a sunnier perspective than
he might if he had done worse. It’s also the temporal slip: Mankiw
doesn’t think his children have “significantly better opportunities
than I had at their age.” [My emphasis]

Ahem. Greg Mankiw was born in 1958; he reached college age in the
mid-1970s, that is, before the great surge in inequality. I’m 5 years
older, and also grew up in that America — and it was a different
country, one in which ordinary public high schools were often pretty
good, in which good higher education was available cheaply at state
universities, in which almost none of the vast apparatus of tutors and
private instruction now used by the elite existed. It was, in short, a
country at a very different place on Alan Krueger’s Great Gatsby
curve. So even if it were true that Mankiw’s children now don’t have
significantly better opportunities than he had then — which I doubt —
this has little relevance to the disparity in opportunities between
the elite and the middle class in today’s America.

And yes, you do wonder how someone can teach at Harvard and not see
just how many of the students come from privileged backgrounds. This
doesn’t make them bad people; it does suggest that we’re much more of
a hereditary oligarchy than conservatives have room for in their
philosophy. <<
-- 
Jim Devine /  "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to