A misleading term

Garth Meyer, Gazette Reporter | Feb 17, 20160

He's just a socialist offering free stuff.

Only a few years ago, the charge would have worked. But in 2016, what used to be the forlorn lament of the purest liberal is now enough to build a legitimate presidential campaign on.

The issue, as it's named, is “income inequality.” It's misleading though, because most of Bernie Sanders' supporters don't even have a problem with it.

The vast majority of Americans are all for successful, accomplished people getting rich. But they do have a problem if they haven't particularly earned it.

In 1983, according to the Pew Research Center, upper-income families had 30 times as much wealth as lower-income families and three times as much as middle income. By 2013, the top group had 70 times as much wealth as the lower and nearly seven times as much as the middle.

Did the upper class get that much better at their jobs?

When something increases gradually, it's fine, it's normal. When something balloons, it gets noticed.

The financial crisis underlined the change.

In the aftermath of 2008, people on Wall Street, who we perhaps had been giving the benefit of the doubt – they must be smart, right? – began to be suspect. By 2011, we had “Occupy Wall Street.”

The protesters found a different reaction this time. Now it seemed like the crackpots might have a point. Some guy sleeping in a tent for three weeks in Lower Manhattan appealed to the mainstream.

While many conservatives scoff at the notion of individual wealth going too high, deep in the heart, is there a line? Wealth is a great thing, but as with many great things, can it be overdone?

Research has shown that people aren't motivated by money, they're motived by esteem, respect, stature. Money is just a shorthand.

When Michael Jordan's salary was $4 million a year winning his first three NBA championships, was he less respected than when he made $33 million five years later?

The point is, if the highest incomes were reigned in a little, it wouldn't cut into comfort, stature or esteem – the real prizes of success.

Hard work and high accomplishment would still be rewarded, handsomely, as they should be.

As it's become, though, the CEO of Boeing making $29 million last year is not “income inequality,” it's just overdone wealth, just like a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition is overdone democratic socialism.

Good intentions, good systems, can be taken too far.

This is what gave us the term, “the one percent.”

Something about just one percent of people controlling that much wealth can sound “rigged” or “unequal,” but two percent or five percent, not really.

Income inequality has always been part of American life, and always will be. It's never been a significant issue before because it wasn’t overdone. Now it is.

How to correct, or not correct, this matter is unclear, but the first step is to better define it.