The legitimacy of altering social institutions to achieve greater equality of material condition is, though often assumed, rarely argued for. Writers note that in a given country the wealthiest n percent of the population holds more than that percentage of the wealth, and the poorest n percent holds less; that to get to the wealth of the top n percent from the poorest, one must look at the bottom p percent (where p is vastly greater than n), and so forth. They then proceed immediately to discuss how this might be altered. On the entitlement conception of justice in holdings, one cannot decide whether the state must do something to alter the situation merely by looking at a distributional profile or at facts such as these. It depends upon how the distribution came about. Some processes yielding these results would be legitimate, and the various parties would be entitled to their respective holdings. If these distributional facts did arise by a legitimate process, then they themselves are legitimate. This is, of course, not to say that they may not be changed, provided this can be done without violating people's entitlements.
The entitlement conception of justice in holdings makes no presumption in favor of equality, or any other overall end state patterning. It cannot merely be assumed that equality must be built into any theory of justice. There is a surprising dearth of arguments for equality capable of coming to grips with the considerations that underlie a nonpatterned conception of justice in holdings. (However, there is no lack of unsupported statements of a presumption in favor of equality).
~Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974), pp. 232-3.
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
What constitutes a legitimate process of wealth distribution?
ReplyDeleteConsider a CEO or company owner who pays his employees as little as he can (while attempting to avoid the threat of unionization), possibly even below industry standards, offers as few benefits as he can get away with, and gives minimal merit increases, all because he wants to keep as much revenue as possible in his own pocket. He is careful not to do anything explicitly illegal, but is unquestionably greedy.
Leaving aside the question of how widespread the above is or is not, and how much of a role it did or did not play in bringing about the present distributional facts we observe in the U.S., has he wronged his employees? They entered into an at-will employment agreement with his organization and agreed to the terms of employment, including salary. The boss owns and/or runs the company and presumably reserves the right to set such terms and has some sort of ownership over whatever value the company produces.
Nevertheless, I take it that greed is wrong because it wrongs somebody. Are the employees wronged? Is society at large wronged in some indirect way by capital's being restricted from circulating on account of one man's selfishness? If someone is wronged doesn't this entail that they are not getting their due, and thus that an injustice is perpetrated against them? Would such an injustice render this an illegitimate process of wealth distribution? Or is it still legitimate and just by virtue of no laws being broken?
"Nevertheless, I take it that greed is wrong because it wrongs somebody."
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely open to all wrongs being wrongings. Avarice is a vice, no doubt. The owner values wealth too much and people too little. He wrongs them, it seems, because he values people too little. Nonetheless, his particular actions as an employer might not be such that he wrongs them as their employer. (One can, for instance, be greedy but still pay someone even MORE than the market value out of a greedy motivation).
"Are the employees wronged?" Everyone is wronged who is treated with under-respect. So, yes, in that sense. But if the market is such that their wages allow them to have their most basic needs met (food, clothing, etc.), and they voluntarily entered into the arrangement, then I would say they are not wronged any further. One has few positive rights, and I think one only has a positive right from others to a very basic subsistence. One does not have a right, e.g., to equal wages with everyone else in one's society. One has many negative rights, however, for instance, to be allowed to find employment, not be enslaved, etc.
"Is society at large wronged in some indirect way by capital's being restricted from circulating on account of one man's selfishness?"
The devil is the details, so we'd need to know more about the particular situation. I would say this, though: we shouldn't think the economy is an unchanging pie wherein if someone has 1/3 of it, there can only be 2/3 for everyone else. The pie can shrink and grow. The employees are free to incorporate and start their own business (perhaps a rival business). They are free to go on strike, etc. Also, he is circulating his wealth, presumably in wages, (LOTS of) taxes, investment, etc.
"Or is it still legitimate and just by virtue of no laws being broken?"
No, there are plenty of ways one can be wronged even if no laws are broken. But I for one would not want to live in a society wherein every way one can be wronged is also a breaking of a law.
"Nonetheless, his particular actions as an employer might not be such that he wrongs them as their employer."
ReplyDeleteWhile there are certainly possible worlds in which that statement is true, in the given case of paying someone less than one can, how else would his "[valuing] people too little" manifest itself? If he's not involved in their personal lives, what other relation does he bear to them, through which his greed can wrong them? I'm not sure it's so easy to divorce his wronging them via greed from his actions as employer.
"Everyone is wronged who is treated with under-respect. So, yes, in that sense." But what does this under-respect look like? What if he's perfectly nice to them, takes their opinions into consideration, never says anything rude to them, etc.? Isn't it the fact that he's not paying them what they're worth the very manifestation of under-respect, and therefore the means by which he wrongs them? Isn't it therefore unjust that he doesn't pay them more?
What if the market becomes such that everyone at the top (employers) are greedy and there are no good jobs to be had? In other words, yes, they entered an at-will employment agreement, but it's not like they had somewhere else to go. Notwithstanding the fact that the employees can start their own business or whatever else, isn't there something wrong or with such a state of affairs? Not that we're really there yet, but there certainly seem to be some signs of such attitudes. Perhaps I just want to have my cake (belief in free markets) and eat it too (get paid more), but something seems wrong with the top x% having skyrocketing real wages while the middle class stagnates. I'm just trying to figure out what it is. Or maybe I've just been looking at too many liberal infographics.
"One has few positive rights", "I for one would not want to live in a society wherein every way one can be wronged is also a breaking of a law. "--I'm with you there.
"While there are certainly possible worlds in which that statement is true, in the given case of paying someone less than one can, how else would his "[valuing] people too little" manifest itself? If he's not involved in their personal lives, what other relation does he bear to them, through which his greed can wrong them? I'm not sure it's so easy to divorce his wronging them via greed from his actions as employer."
ReplyDeleteTB: You framed the discussion as the guy being greedy. OK. So he values money more than he should and values people less. Without knowing anymore, I can't say whether he wrongs them. You say that this is a case where someone pays "someone less than one can." I take it that this is true of ALL transactions wherein one does not give someone all of one's goods for a job rendered. SURELY it is not unjust to give someone less than one can. Then I ask, why is it unjust to pay someone what they agree to work for?
"What if the market becomes such that everyone at the top (employers) are greedy and there are no good jobs to be had? In other words, yes, they entered an at-will employment agreement, but it's not like they had somewhere else to go."
TB: Again, we'd need to no more details. Is there a government? What sort of government is there? Are the people free to incorporate? Go on strike? Etc.?
"Notwithstanding the fact that the employees can start their own business or whatever else, isn't there something wrong or with such a state of affairs?"
TB: Above you said that there are no good jobs to be had. Here you said they can start their own business. With everything there are trade-offs. If one can start one's own business, one is one's own boss. Some people prefer to be one's own boss than to make more at a factory. Plus, why should we think that if one can start one's own business that it won't be able to succeed. If the former bosses are all greedy and employees don't like them, hire them at your business. If word gets out (and you're competing with them) you should do fine.
"something seems wrong with the top x% having skyrocketing real wages while the middle class stagnates. I'm just trying to figure out what it is. Or maybe I've just been looking at too many liberal infographics."
Without a totalitarian government, there will never EVER be equal wages and equal wealth. Some people just don't CARE to make as much as others; and whenever people make voluntary transactions, some will make more. (Pro sports players will make a lot simply because we're all willing to pay a little to watch them).
I have no problem with the so-called 1%, per se. I have no problem with huge corporations; they are made of people after all. At least, I have no more problem with them than a more powerful federal government. What I do have a problem with is crony-capitalism, businesses too big to fail, etc. Part (not all but part) of the problem is big-business in bed with the government and a market not as free as I'd prefer.
"You say that this is a case where someone pays "someone less than one can." I take it that this is true of ALL transactions...etc."
ReplyDeleteTrue. Forgive the imprecision. What I meant to refer to was the case where someone deliberately pays someone else as little as they can. In any case my main question in that paragraph remains how it is the case that he wrongs them via greed in some other way than giving as little compensation or benefits as possible. I imagine he can wrong them as employer in other ways, such as a haughty attitude, or inappropriate sexual suggestions, but those seem to emanate from something other than greed.
He pays them less because he wants more money, or rather, maximal money, so far as is possible. Isn't that where the wronging comes from (or isn't it at least in the neighborhood), if there is any wronging that comes from greed? If not, where else might it come from?
Consider:
1. All wrongs are wrongings.
2. All wrongings are a denial of someone's due.
3. A denial of someone's due is an injustice.
4. Greed is a wrong.
5. Therefore, greed is an injustice.
Is one of my premises off? Is there a due the employees are being denied? Is the due they are being denied simply "being valued less than they should be as people"? That seems rather abstract. It seems that their employer's valuing them less than they should be as people, in relation to how he values money would be clearly evident in how much money or benefits he dispenses to them. Or here's another way it seems to me:
5. If an act is performed with wrong motives, then the act is wrong (see also Prov. 16:2).
6. The employer compensates minimally because of his greed.
7. Greed is a wrong motive.
8. Therefore, the employer's compensating minimally is wrong.
9. Therefore, (based on 2 &3 above) the employer's compensating minimally is an injustice.
He doesn't have to compensate maximally, whatever that means, just not minimally!
"Without a totalitarian government, there will never EVER be equal wages and equal wealth."
Just to clarify, I don't think there should be.
"I have no problem with the so-called 1%, per se."
Nor do I, per se. I don't have a problem with unequal incomes simpliciter. What I have a problem with is skyrocketing incomes of the "1%" conjoined with stagnating incomes of the middle class (who pays the middle class' salaries? Oh...the 1%, who have skyrocketing incomes based on the efforts of their middle class employees? Hmmm!). It's not the inequality or presence of a gap. It's not even so much whether the gap is growing. The problem would lie in the gap's growing simultaneously with middle/lower incomes stagnating.
I don't know if middle class wages actually are stagnating. I find lots of articles saying they are, and a couple saying they aren't, all colored by ideologies, so unless I become an economist I guess I'll never really know :( But, in theory, that seems like an unjust or otherwise wrong state of affairs.
"Is one of my premises off?"
ReplyDeletePremise 4. Greed--avarice--is a vice. It's an inclination/desire to love money more than one should and, perhaps conjoined with that, to value the needs of others less than one should and to be less charitable than one should. Like all vices it comes in degrees. So it's not a wrong action but it can be the motivation for a wrong action. But insofar as his attitude--his valuing--of the needs of others is wrong, he wrongs others--even before any actions--by not rendering to them the proper respect in his attitude. But, like I said, people have multiple motivations and sometimes greed can be compatible with giving someone a just wage (even though the action is wrong insofar as it's motivated by greed). Even if one is given a just wage, one can still be wronged by the action. (Even if I agreed to $100,000 wage at OBU--which I would in a heartbeat--if the president gives me that because he thinks I'll become greedy and go to hell, I've been wronged even if the wage is more than a just one).
"It's not the inequality or presence of a gap. It's not even so much whether the gap is growing. The problem would lie in the gap's growing simultaneously with middle/lower incomes stagnating....But, in theory, that seems like an unjust or otherwise wrong state of affairs."
A stronger middle class is preferable but to what extent the rising 1% and the stagnant middle income growth is unjust is constitutive--not of the inequality per se--but any and all unjust actions which contribute to the inequality.
And, again, I see nothing wrong with paying someone as little as the market will bear just so long as the person's most basic needs are met. We just took two bids for a termite treatment for the house we're selling (at the buyer's request) and we're taking the lowest bid. I have no problem with that AT ALL.
I'm sure some of the 1% just like what they do--and not unlike politicians--would rather be in charge than have someone else be in charge.
"Greed--avarice--is a vice...So it's not a wrong action but it can be the motivation for a wrong action."
ReplyDeleteIn that case, 5-9 still seem to hold. Thus paying as little as the market will bear, if motivated by greed, is still a wrong. Surely at least some neutral actions, if performed with wrong motives, are actually wrong actions (Prov. 16:2 again). I contend that compensating minimally is one such action.
I also think it's reasonable to assume that your taking the lower bid on a termite treatment is different than the scenario I described in some relevant ways like not having millions/billions in profits or disposable income (unless OBU did give you that 6 figure salary after all), and therefore having to make sure you retain enough funds for house payments and childcare and giving to the poor and stuff. You might still be motivated by greed also, but there are plenty of ways that you could be motivated by virtuous things to choose the lower bid. Whereas in the situation described in 5-9, the employer compensates minimally because of greed.
I suppose there are reasons why an employer would be motivated by morally neutral (or even virtuous) concerns to compensate minimally as well, but I guess I'm just skeptical that such motivation is the norm.
So, if someone compensates minimally BECAUSE OF (or largely because of) greed, and given 5-9, aren't they therefore being unjust?
"In that case, 5-9 still seem to hold. Thus paying as little as the market will bear, if motivated by greed, is still a wrong. Surely at least some neutral actions, if performed with wrong motives, are actually wrong actions (Prov. 16:2 again). I contend that compensating minimally is one such action." "So, if someone compensates minimally BECAUSE OF (or largely because of) greed, and given 5-9, aren't they therefore being unjust?"
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Any action done with a wrong motive corrupts the whole act. But, of course, that doesn't show that paying someone as little as the market will allow is wrong.
Well, this has been helpful. I suspect that there is a considerable amount of greed motivating not only the top 1%, but also the middle class as well. How does one measure the pervasiveness of greed in the economy and society? If our society as a whole were organized around an something like ethic of generosity more so than personal gain, I wonder what it would look like.
ReplyDeleteGood. Now replace "greed" with "envy," change the 1% to everyone else, and ask the same question.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll put up a Nozick quotation on envy next.