Welcome friends!
Well, looks we made it through another year and not the best we’ve seen that’s for sure. I suppose for the sake of tradition I should deliver an optimistic greeting of the new year but honestly with Lord Voldemort still entrenched in the White House, his fanatically loyal death eaters controlling the Senate, and dementors from the frozen wastes of Durmstrang helping the Dark Lord’s oleaginous minions in the Ministry of Misinformation exert their dark influence over the army of witless, greedy, bigoted, drug addled muggles of the worst sort imaginable who make up a rather alarming portion of the American population, I can’t really even muster the strength to give a hearty show of optimism right now. (Yes, it was yet another Harry Potter Weekend at my house over the holidays. I suppose the latest installment must be in theaters but really without the cute kids cavorting about what’s the point?) So let’s keep it real and resolve to just do our best to get through 2019 some old way and do what we can to bring about a happier 2020. This year I thought I’d use my end of the year post to tackle some interesting issues raised by Larry the Cable Guy in a holiday movie offering from some years ago now: Jingle All the Way 2. Yes, I watch way too much TV.
If you’re never seen the movie in question, which I can readily understand, I can tell you it’s a bit of generally harmless albeit forgettable family fluff featuring a sanitized and unrealistically benign version of a conservative American redneck in the form of the aforementioned Larry. Although it’s quite clear the sort of person Larry is meant to represent he certainly isn’t very similar to any real redneck I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet and let me tell you I’ve met a few in my lifetime. Did I mention I lived for some time in the great American interior? Well, I did, and Larry is much less unreasonable, rude, bigoted, violent, drunken, and just in general offensive than any real American redneck you’re likely to encounter on let’s say a road trip through the great American Midwest or South. But on the other hand the character is clearly not cut from whole cloth either. There is a kernel of authenticity there that allows potential insight into this most confounding and disturbing of American subcultures.
The plot such as it was involved the divorced Larry competing for his young daughter’s affection against her wily, scheming, and incidentally very rich new step father. Shortly before the big day they both mistakenly come to believe the little girl requires a certain toy for Christmas and the rich jerk promptly tries to buy and hoard all locally available instances of the object in question so he and he alone can present the coveted prize. Hilarity or at least mild amusement ensues as he and Larry do battle. Turns out the preternaturally angelic daughter had no such crass materialistic wishes. Silly adults. No, it was all a big misunderstanding. The kid didn’t want a toy: she just wanted everyone to be happy. The end. Kind of cute in a weird sort of way. But the plot wasn’t really the interesting bit for me. No, the interesting bit was a scene near the end in which Larry and the evil step dad engage in some verbal sparring that touched on the sort of distributional issues I find interesting but so few other people appear to do, although I guess in this case the writers thought enough people might be interested they wrote it into the script, which is weird. I wonder? Am I just not bringing it up the right way? Too serious? Oh well. In the words of the old song I’ve got to be me.
To get back to the movie, Larry’s contribution to the discussion in question involved two noteworthy lines of argument. First, he suggested the reason he was struggling economically compared to his wealthy opponent was that he simply chose to not work very hard and indeed only part time to have more time for fishing and his daughter. He rejected the insinuation or really I suppose preempted the insinuation this lifestyle choice rendered him in any way inferior to the rich guy, for example in terms of discharging his responsibilities to society, by noting he “pays his taxes” like anyone else and has never taken a “handout” from anyone. He chooses to be poor and is happy he has the freedom to do so. Second, he clarified he doesn’t “begrudge” the rich guy his relative wealth and power; indeed, he’s happy for the guy. They’re just two different people living different sorts of lives. No class conflict here! It’s the sort of philosophy or perspective one supposes might appeal not only to rich Americans who likely wish all the poor people of the USA could be as sensible as Larry but also and this is the interesting bit for me the many poor people in the USA and elsewhere who seem never to mind when rich people arguably take advantage of them every way possible. So let’s break it down a bit and let’s see where the disconnect is coming from.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the very specific basis of Larry’s relative poverty. He simply chooses to not work very hard. Tomorrow he could presumably choose to work hard and be rich, or so he appears to believe. It’s an interesting coincidence this most unlikely and implausible scenario is the one that provides what most people would surely consider the most ethically plausible case for economic inequality. Larry’s situation has nothing to do with the myriad of factors outside his immediate control that may nonetheless apply in other people’s economic situations that make the issue of wealth inequality so ethically vexing for some people, so for example nothing involving his innate talents or abilities, his intelligence, his physical, mental, or emotional health, his early childhood experiences and environment, the quality of his early education or lack thereof, his family’s emotional and intellectual support and wealth and connections, government policies such as tax policies, macroeconomic trends particularly at various significant moments of his life, unpredictable changes in technology, etc. The troubling thing of course is that one rather suspects although Larry may believe his relative poverty is entirely a matter of his own choosing he might one day decide to give wealth a try and find out otherwise. One can’t help but suspect Larry’s psyche may be on rather thin ice. One hopes for his sake he sticks with fishing.
The second noteworthy element to Larry’s worldview is he appears to accept the distributional system in place so completely and uncritically it never even occurs to him to challenge it. When he explains his acceptance of the rich guy’s relative economic power he doesn’t say he accepts the ethical argument in favor of that result but that he doesn’t “begrudge” the man his situation. Although the word “begrudge” can imply simply looking upon something with displeasure the usual connotation is that the displeasure is not rooted in one’s ethical beliefs but envy. One doesn’t typically say something like one begrudges the wealth of a thief who just made off with one’s money; one might object to it or oppose it or whatever but generally something a little more forthright than begrudge. So although open to interpretation Larry’s language certainly make it sound as though he thinks the only reason he might conceivably object to the rich guy’s relative economic is the unfortunate emotion of envy. This is surely a common view of rich people absolutely convinced of the ethical basis of their wealth no matter how they may have come upon it but it is always somewhat noteworthy coming from a poor person. One can’t help but wonder if Larry is simply aping the rich fellow’s worldview and trying to head off a likely retort or criticism or if he really cannot imagine harboring any more substantive objection to the man’s relative economic power. The latter possibility seems particularly unlikely in this case because the movie makes clear the rich fellow in question was basically born into his position by inheriting the family business, gives no indication the man engaged in any particularly laudable behavior to keep it going, and makes it quite clear the man used his economic power in what many people would probably consider a rather unethical way, to manipulate the market to harm the father’s relationship with his daughter. One might reasonably suspect all is not as it should be but not Larry.
It’s the same story with Larry’s other claim to dignity. He proudly proclaims he dutifully “pays his taxes” but evinces no particular concern at all about what those taxes are, who devised the tax system, or how much he pays relative to other for example wealthier people. It’s just a part of the distributional background. Taxes appear. He pays them. That’s his claim to dignity. Just the sort of person rich people devising a tax code would surely most appreciate. One hopes he can continue to pay his taxes in the future.
It’s a similar story when it comes to claiming his share of the output of the government sector. Larry takes great pride in never having accepted a “handout.” But one does have some concerns. Might he consider public services funded by his and other’s taxes handouts? What if he pays less in real terms than another person, let’s say a rich person? Would he then be accepting a handout from that person? Is he therefore a supporter of those non-graduated flat income tax schemes in which rich and poor pay the same tax so that proportionately the opportunity cost of the tax is many multiples higher for the poor than the rich? Or does he solve the issue some other way say by rejecting or avoiding all public services paid for by taxes? Does he for example drive only on toll roads? Does he turn up his nose at public parks and other amenities? Does he distrust the police and instead pay for protection from local street thugs? Even then may he have benefited from minimum wage laws or consumer protection or worker health and safety regulations that arguably raise the price of goods for other people? Is he indirectly receiving what amounts to handouts from his fellow consumers? Has his dignity been wounded without his ever realizing it? Or is whatever we’re doing now just fine and not a handout but if we do anything more then the increment would represent a handout? One can’t help but suspect Larry is again on shaky ground. One hopes he never inquires too deeply about how real societies work or the pros and cons of real market systems and so on. But again isn’t Larry’s worldview the sort any rich person concerned to combat incipient socialism might appreciate? How annoying for them when poor people start going about asking for ethically unjustified handouts in the form of government services.
We’ve been having some fun with Larry thus far but let’s not just do the easy bit shall we? Let’s flip it around and look at the one plausible aspect of Larry’s worldview: the notion that one very legitimate reason for economic inequality including even extreme economic inequality is that some people may be willing to do certain things society values while other people may not. That does sound like a legitimate and plausible distributional view. If someone simply isn’t interested in working on anything society values doesn’t it make sense he or she would receive nothing from society in compensation or if he or she did then only in the form of handouts based on charity rather than any plausible ethical claim? We’ve already discussed the fallacy involved in assuming there’s something ethically special about the pattern of demand for labor falling out of any random distribution of economic power at least from the perspective of economic theory, but let’s say we address that problem and set up a distributional system we think allocates economic power in a way we think is fair, which may or may not correspond to what we have right now. What if even under those conditions someone simply doesn’t wish to participate? Surely he or she should have that choice even if it leads to relative poverty. In that sense an ethical distributional system that reflects the value we place on freedom would arguably need to leave room for possibly even extreme economic inequality, which suggests that when liberals discuss what they see as the problem of economic inequality they really should be a lot more specific and in particular talk about economic inequality resulting from certain unacceptable sources. That’s actually a pretty useful insight I think. One may not suppose Larry’s situation is very common and that few poor people simply choose poverty but one should be aware that for some other people this is the one and only scenario that springs naturally to their minds.
We could just end it there but maybe we should quickly consider what the argument against economic inequality even from this particular source might look like just for shits and giggles. We’re talking about the market power of other people under what we consider an equitable and ethically correct distribution setting up a certain pattern of demand for labor and someone rejecting those incentives so to make it most plausible let’s imagine someone whose innate talents and abilities and education and so on suggests he or she can best contribute to society’s collective demand by digging ditches but who decides instead to go write poetry on a windswept hilltop. Well, I suppose that’s the genteel version of the issue. At this juncture we could equally imagine someone who insists upon smoking crack and playing video games or writing snarky blog posts all day long. Doesn’t matter. The funny thing of course is that some people with such inclinations would in fact be perfectly capable of engaging in their chosen lifestyle without any particular hardship, for example, people who inherited a big old pot of money, while others might experience a bit more difficulty pulling it off. One’s feelings on this state of affairs must depend in part I suppose on one’s opinion about the fairness of the distributional policies that make such results possible, in this case inheritance, and in that sense perhaps the notion one may have concerns contradicts my assumption of an ethical distributional system. I suppose if one wanted a system based more on individual merit and less on fate or accident of birth and one wanted everyone to start life with the same range of choices then perhaps one might consider eliminating inheritance or maybe instituting one of those minimum income arrangements as I understand some countries have tried relatively recently. However, I suspect there may be an argument even beyond distributing freedom fairly. Let’s say for example one attributes some value to whatever the person is doing that is not currently recognized by the market as particularly valuable, video game playing seems unlikely but maybe writing snarky blog posts or poetry or more generally writing or philosophizing or making art. In that case one may have some reservations about a system in which only spoiled rich kids engage in such activities. One may wonder if society may gain some sort of benefit if other people were given similar opportunities to follow their talents and inclinations even when they prove inconsistent with current market incentives. Again, I suppose we’d be talking about eliminating inheritance or instituting minimum incomes or at least programs for aspiring writers and artists and so on but maybe not based on conventional notions of talent or merit so we don’t lose the sense of going against the grain.
Not trying to resolve anything here of course. I never am really. Just talking. Remarking. Commenting. Why? It’s interesting. We don’t want to end up sounding like a comical simple-minded cartoon character like Larry do we? Well, if you agree you’re in luck because I have every intention of returning in the new year with plenty of random thoughts and observations to get the old neurons fired up and working again. Happy new year my brothers and sisters!
