By Billy Gunn
����������� In the
article �The Inequality Express,� Barry Bluestone, the Frank L. Boyden
Professor of Political Economy at the University of Massachusetts/Boston,
tries to paint a bleak picture of U.S. workers suffering a declining standard
of living.� Bluestone cites Michael
Young�s 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033, in which it
is predicted that a growing inequality in income distribution would spark a
rebellion in 2034. �Bluestone then
states that although we have not seen a revolution yet, Young�s prophecy
seems uncomfortably prescient.�� He
goes on to offer three trends he thinks are consistent with Young�s
forecast.� First, the distribution of
earnings increasingly reflects the distribution of formal education in the
workplace.� Second, the earnings gap
between the educated and not-so-well educated is increasing.� Third, the standard of living of a large
part of the workforce, especially workers with less than a college degree,
has steadily declined.� The article
continues on, citing various sources of income and earnings data to support
the arguments.
����������� My
position towards the article is of disagreement.� I do not disagree with the figures represented, but I disagree
with the author�s interpretation of those figures.� He fails to define what a decreasing standard of living means
or even why the fact that a high school dropout earning almost three times
less than a college graduate is a problem.�
My question to the author is, what is wrong with a meritocracy?� In my opinion awarding people based on
merit is a good thing.� It encourages
motivation and innovation.
����������� The
impression that I get from the article is that the author is a
communist.� To suggest that there is a
problem because a male high school dropout is making 18 percent less at the
end of the 1980�s while men having completed a master�s degree are making
nine percent more is ludicrous.� Why
should someone who is not even motivated enough to complete high school be rewarded
with pay that is anywhere near that of someone having completed a
masters?� Now, there are individuals
that drop out of high school and go on to make very comfortable lives for
themselves.� That is because they are
hard working and motivated or just lucky.�
But, to drop out of high school and resign ones self to mediocrity
merits no reward in and of itself.
����������� I want to
point out again Bluestone�s third trend.�
He says, �The real standard of living of a large portion of the
workforce�particularly those with less than a college degree�has steadily and
sharply declined.�� Sharply declined
in what way?� He later goes on to say,
�more than half of all U.S. workers�those with no more than a high school
diploma, are extreme losers.�� The
author needs to quit reading so many financial analysis reports and get out
and talk to some U.S. workers.� Most
of my immediate family, with just high school diplomas, is doing very well
for themselves.� In actuality the bulk
of the extreme losers in this country are lazy and unmotivated.� I myself do not have a college degree yet
I make more money than most college grads I know in the same age group.� That is because I was very interested in
obtaining a certain high demand skill and I followed through with it.� When I came home from work I would pick up
a book on networking or some other similar topic and would read.� I have been doing that for two years and
continue to do it now.� Hard work and motivation
have paid off for me and will continue to pay off.
����������� One of the
solutions the author offers to correct the earnings inequality is regulation
of the labor market.� To me, that is
not a very popular idea to spread around.�
It seems like most Americans are asking for less government
regulation.� Another idea that is
offered are tax-and-transfer programs.�
So, he wants to take more pay from successful Americans to increase
the welfare checks of high school dropouts.�
I know that sounds harsh, but that is how I interpret the
article.� The author is trying to make
successful people feel bad for being successful and I think that is wrong.
����������� Bluestone
continually mentions the decline of the standard of living for non-college
grads without offering examples.� I
recently saw a news broadcast where the reporter was questioning an elderly
man in a soup line.� The reporter
asked the man if he was poor.� The man
replied yes.� He asked the man if he
had a home.� The man replied yes, and
that he had a stove, and a TV with cable.�
Next the reporter interviewed a single mother of three.� She worked part time as a secretary, was
on welfare, and living in a two bedroom government subsidized apartment.� She had a stove, a frost free
refrigerator, and cable TV.� Her children
never went to bed without a meal.� I
call that living within your means.�
If I am to go on to get a master�s degree and become the CTO of a
large company should I have my pay taxed significantly higher so that that
woman can get a bigger television, or maybe a satellite dish, or name brand
clothes for her and her children.� I
don�t think so.� In this country each
of us is responsible for our current situations and we each have the ability
to improve or worsen those situations.�
That is what makes capitalism and the U.S. great.
Reference:
Bluestone, Barry. �The Inequality Express.� �(Cited in �Annual Editions Sociology
98/99.�� Dushkin/Mcgraw-Hill
1998)
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������