Naked Economics Wheelan, Charles (books to read for 13 year olds TXT) 📖

Americans would choose B. In other words, relative income does matter. Envy may be part of the explanation. It is also true, Mr. Frank points out, that in complex social environments we seek ways to evaluate our performance. Relative wealth is one of them.

There is a second, more pragmatic concern about rising income inequality. Might the gap between rich and poor—ethics aside—become large enough that it begins to inhibit economic growth? Is there a point at which income inequality stops motivating us to work harder and becomes counterproductive? This might happen for all kinds of reasons. The poor might become disenfranchised to the point that they reject important political and economic institutions, such as property rights or the rule of law. A lopsided distribution of income may cause the rich to squander resources on increasingly frivolous luxuries (e.g., doggy birthday cakes) when other kinds of investments, such as human capital for the poor, would yield a higher return. Or class warfare may lead to measures that punish the rich without making the poor any better off.12 Some studies have indeed found a negative relationship between income inequality and economic growth; others have found just the opposite. Over time, data will inform this relationship. But the larger philosophical debate will rage on: If the pie is growing, how much should we care about the size of the pieces?

The subject of human capital begs some final questions. Will the poor always be with us, as Jesus once admonished? Does our free market system make poverty inevitable? Must there be losers if there are huge economic winners? No, no, and no. Economic development is not a zero-sum game; the world does not need poor countries in order to have rich countries, nor must some people be poor in order for others to be rich. Families who live in public housing on the South Side of Chicago are not poor because Bill Gates lives in a big house. They are poor despite the fact that Bill Gates lives in a big house. For a complex array of reasons, America’s poor have not shared in the productivity gains spawned by Microsoft Windows. Bill Gates did not take their pie away; he did not stand in the way of their success or benefit from their misfortunes. Rather, his vision and talent created an enormous amount of wealth that not everybody got to share. There is a crucial distinction between a world in which Bill Gates gets rich by stealing other people’s crops and a world in which he gets rich by growing his own enormous food supply that he shares with some people and not others. The latter is a better representation of how a modern economy works.

In theory, a world in which every individual was educated, healthy, and productive would be a world in which every person lived comfortably. Perhaps we will never cure the world of the assorted physical and mental illnesses that prevent some individuals from reaching their full potential. But that is biology, not economics. Economics tells us that there is no theoretical limit to how well we can live or how widely our wealth can be spread.

Can that really be true? If we all had Ph.D.s, who would pass out the towels at the Four Seasons? Probably no one. As a population becomes more productive, we begin to substitute technology for labor. We use voice mail instead of secretaries, washing machines instead of maids, ATMs instead of bank tellers, databases instead of file clerks, vending machines instead of shopkeepers, backhoes instead of ditch diggers. The motivation for this development harks back to a concept from Chapter 1: opportunity cost. Highly skilled individuals can do all kinds of productive things with their time. Thus, it is fabulously expensive to hire an engineer to bag groceries. (How much would you have to be paid to pass out towels at the Four Seasons?) There are far fewer domestic servants in the United States than in India, even though the United States is a richer country. India is awash with low-skilled workers who have few other employment options; America is not, making domestic labor relatively expensive (as anyone with a nanny can attest). Who can afford a butler who would otherwise earn $50 an hour writing computer code?

When we cannot automate menial tasks, we may relegate them to students and young people as a means for them to acquire human capital. I caddied for more than a decade (most famously for George W. Bush, long before he ascended to the presidency); my wife waited tables. These jobs provide work experience, which is an important component of human capital. But suppose there was some unpleasant task that could not be automated away, nor could it be done safely by young people at the beginning of their careers. Imagine, for example, a highly educated community that produces all kinds of valuable goods and services but generates a disgusting sludge as a by-product. Further imagine that collecting the sludge is horrible, mind-numbing work. Yet if the sludge is not collected, then the whole economy will grind to a halt. If everyone has a Harvard degree, who hauls away the sludge?

The sludge hauler does. And he or she, incidentally, would be one of the best-paid workers in town. If the economy depends on hauling this stuff away, and no machine can do the task, then the community would have to induce someone to do the work. The way to induce people to do anything is to pay them a lot. The wage for hauling sludge would get bid up to the point that some individual—a doctor, or an engineer, or a writer—would be willing to leave a more pleasant job to haul sludge. Thus, a world rich in human capital may still have unpleasant tasks—proctologist springs to mind—but no one has to be poor. Conversely, many people may accept less money to do particularly enjoyable work—teaching college students comes to mind (especially with the summer off).

Human capital creates opportunities.