Battle for equality

Equal-outcomes idea misguided

Countless books have been dedicated to the subject of income equality. One has received international attention since its 2013 publication: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Paris: Editions du Seuil).

Piketty, associate chair at the Paris School of Economics, wrote a book that reached No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list in May 2014.

In this book, Piketty argues that the rate of return on capital held by the wealthy is greater than overall economic growth. His solution to this problem is a redistribution of wealth through state intervention, specifically an annual progressive global tax on assets, starting at 1 million euro ($1.1 million)—a threshold low enough to include a family business or farm.

It is essential for every young Arkansan to consider this issue because such policies address inequality and enacting more will affect our future.

One should define terms in order to examine Piketty’s arguments. There are two prevalent ideas on equality. The first is based on the American ideal of equality of opportunity. In brief, all individuals are to be treated equally before the law and allowed the opportunity to succeed according to their talents. The second view seeks an equality of outcomes. Proponents argue that people should share the same material wealth regardless of their circumstance, skill or effort.

The first idea looks to economic markets to generate opportunities. The second relies on state intervention to enforce equality within an income range. The solution that Piketty outlines in his book is based on an equality of outcomes.

As a college student, I understand the appeal of Piketty’s argument to millennials. Young people are concerned about the future. They seem to be paying a price for the brazen and self-absorbed behaviors of previous generations. Soaring college tuition rates, shrinking job opportunities and rising debt levels concern us.

Young people want to break the chains of poverty, crime and violence that are holding many back. We are idealistic and want to create a new and better world.

But will Piketty’s ideas actually benefit humanity?

Unfortunately, his ideas are not practical. The world is composed of individuals with unique talents, skills and desires. It is simply unreasonable to ask Americans—young or old—to reject the American ideal of equality of opportunity for the forced egalitarianism that Piketty proposes.

Suppressing people’s individual spirit and genius will only stifle the growth and progress of society.

We do not force a baseball pitcher to ease up on his fastball to accommodate a less-talented batter. And we insist on only the smartest and most motivated individuals to enter medical school and become our future surgeons. The examples are endless.

In other words, incentives are diminished in a society based on equal outcomes. Individuals lose their desire to perform, and production is reduced without the personal rewards—including income—that come from ingenuity and hard work. Without the desire to excel and strive for something greater, human beings enter a world of gray.

Piketty’s ideas are misguided; it is an equality of opportunity that will allow people of all incomes to grow and progress in society.