jump to navigation

= October 25, 2006

Posted by ocmpoma in : economics , trackback

In chapter 11 of his Basic Economics, on page 183 of the 2004 edition, Thomas Sowell says,

“Someone born and raised in highly favorable circumstances may find it easier to become a brain surgeon than someone born and raised in highly unfavorable circumstances may find it to become a carpenter. But that is very different from saying that brain surgeons are paid ‘too much’ or carpenters ‘too little.’”

Sowell goes on to point out that policies which attempt to help those from unfavorable circumstances become brain surgeons are much more effective, and certainly more beneficial, than policies which attempt to simply equalize their pay. I found this passage a rather cogent and concise illustration of two points that tend to come up whenever I find myself in a political or economic discussion.

First, there’s my common theme of addressing causes, not symptoms of problems. The inequity between brain surgeons and carpenters goes much deeper than the inequity in their respective salaries. As Sowell points out, someone from a privileged background is going to find it much easier, all other things being equal, to get into a university (and especially into, say, an Ivy League university), and so on. The symptom is more surgeons, etc. coming from such backgrounds. The cause is the fact that the system as it currently exists is not as meritocratic as we tend to picture it.

Which is, in essence, point two: there is not equality of opportunity in the Western world (to say nothing of the rest of the world). Of course it’s possible for someone from an “unfavorable” background to become a brain surgeon. And, indeed, the only thing truly stopping anyone who is at least minimally talented enough to become a brain surgeon from doing so is that person themselves.

But.

The fact that someone from an unfavorable background will, all other things being equal, have to work much harder to achieve the same goal is not equality of opportunity. It is equality of possible outcome, yes, but that is hardly the same thing.

I don’t think that most people would consider it equal (or even fair) if two people were to play chess, but the board was already set up so that one side, say, black, had a distinct advantage. Certainly, both players still have a chance of winning, and if white were a much more skilled player, she could prevail. But if both were equally skilled and both tried equally hard, would anyone deny that the odds were stacked in black’s favor? Equality of possible outcome, but not equal opportunity.

So where does that leave us? With some hard questions to address: for example, how important to us, both individually and as a society, is the initial set-up of the chess board? How much are we willing to alter it so that both sides at start on more equal footing? How much of an effect on those playing now will we tolerate in the name of those who are to play later? I think that questions such as these address the heart of the matter, and if we are to even begin to see change (if it is, in fact, change that we want), then we need to start discussing them.

Tags for this article: , ,

[?]

Comments»

no comments yet - be the first?