Mind the (age) gap

Economists love to argue about redistributive policies. The act of taking money or resources and spreading them around get to the art of many fundamental disagreements. To the libertarian, all that matters when evaluating circumstances and fairness is how individuals started. One such believer, Charles Murray, perceives that "inequalities in wealth that result from people's choices are nonproblematic." (1) Rawls, on the other hand, argues that "society is not something private." (2) From his perspective, inequalities in wealth are problematic if the general pool of resources can solve them.

These arguments are obviously made from a theoretical standpoint and there are always complications when applying them to a real live society. But to further complicate the validity of their application: when these theories talk about individuals, they really mean adults. Where do children fit into the equation?

Spending on children comprises one of the lowest federal expenses. The US government spends about 2.2 percent of the GDP on children and various services directed at them. In comparison, about 5.3 percent of the GDP is spent on the elderly.

The view from the budget is even more shocking: less than ten percent went to children; more than a third went to the elderly.

Since 1975, spending on children has only risen with inflation and Medicaid costs, whereas spending on the elderly has skyrocketed. Benefits for children — paid through their parents — have shifted away from cash payments to in-kind benefits, through initiatives like food stamps, health care and programs such as Head Start. But within the next decade, spending on children is actually expected to decline.

This seems like an unequal split when viewed with any philosophical lens. The economic state in which children live is, in nearly all cases, irrespective of the choices they themselves have made. A child's opportunities are determined by the sheer chance of where they are born and to whom. An older person, however, has had a lifetime of choice-making. Sure, everyone is entitled to a little assistance when they can no longer care for themselves, but from the libertarian perspective — perhaps they should have made better choices in their youth to ensure a more comfortable future.

From the Rawlsian perspective, why should one age bracket be given significantly more assistance than another? Where's the fairness in that? If resources are not private, but rather societal, shouldn't aid be spread around equally?

If "inequalities must work to the greatest benefit of the working poor," it doesn't seem that this particular inequality meets the philosophical bar. Subjecting children to poverty, despite the happenstance way in which they found themselves impoverished in the first place, is unfair on all counts.

_____

(1) (2) Tomasi, John. Market Democracy, chapter 6

Drawing the line

One of the first concepts taught in introductory economics is the measure of poverty. How is it decided who will receive the label and who will not? For the final exam we memorized numbers like $20,000 (for a family of four) and $10,000 (individual), but with little thought to how the numbers were derived or what they meant. The standard from which these numbers come dates as far back as the Johnson Administration, based upon a formula stipulating that the average family would spend a third of its income on food. The measure has not changed except to be adjusted for inflation in the intervening time period since.

Many argue that the measure is not only inaccurate, but makes calculating the impact of anti-poverty measures (like food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) very difficult. Based upon data gathered in this census this year, the federal government will actually retool the metric upon which we draw the poverty line. What exactly this new formula will look like is still up in the air, though that has not stopped economists from trying to postulate what it may look like.

Statistics are a fickle tool and numbers can often be tweaked, pushed and prodded to generate the results one wants to hear. Under an administration against welfare, the poverty line might be edged a little lower, whereas an administration looking to implement welfare programs, the line will be placed such that a sizable enough population falls below it to merit action.

In an art-imitates-life moment, here's an excerpt from a "West Wing" episode that explains how the poverty model was derived and how it works. The fictional Democratic administration was obviously less than thrilled that more people had become classified as poor under their watch due to inflationary adjustments, but viewed the ability to pass greater welfare reform as "good news." The show always was heralded for sticking to realistic, relevant topics.

Ethnic enigma

When we try and place ourselves on a spectrum, rate how things are going, we often use a scale of 1 to 10. But here's a new scale: South Dakota Native Americans to New Jersey Asian Americans.

According to a recent study of well-being, broken down by ethnic group and state of residence, these are the endpoints. Asians in New Jersey will live, "on average, an astonishing 26 years longer, are 11 times more likely to have a graduate degree, and earn $35,610 more per year" than Native Americans in South Dakota.

The results prove a number of shockingly wide disparities — the life expectancy of an African American is roughly equivalent to that of the average American … three decades ago.

The report also presents a number of "factoids" about well-being in America, everything from health to education to economic mobility. And here's the not-so-surprising reality: we're falling behind.

A poor child born in Germany, France, Canada, or one of the Nordic countries has a better chance to join the middle class in adulthood than an American child born into similar circumstances.




The U.S. ranks second among 177 countries in per-capita income but 12th on human development, according to the global Human Development Index, published annually by the United Nations Development Programme. Each of the 11 countries ahead of the U.S. has a lower per-capita income than the U.S., but all perform better on the health and knowledge dimensions.




The U.S. infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland.




If the U.S. infant mortality rate were equal to that of first-ranked Sweden, twenty-one thousand more American babies would have lived to celebrate their first birthdays in 2005.




In 98 countries, new mothers have 14 or more weeks of paid maternity leave. The U.S. has no federally mandated paid maternity leave.




The United States ranks second in the world in per-capita income (behind Luxembourg), but thirty-fourth in survival of infants to age one.




The U.S. ranks forty-second in global life expectancy and first among the world’s twenty-five richest countries in the percentage of children living in poverty.




In the 2006 OECD international assessment of fifteen-year-olds, in math, the U.S. came in twenty-fourth, and in science, the U.S. came in seventeenth.




The U.S. incarceration rate is five-to-nine times greater than that of our peer nations.

So what is the greatest nation in the world to do? Accept our inequalities and move forward? Face up to them? Work to equalize the disparities that exist within our own boundaries (and then look to change the world)?

We may be providing for the Asian Americans in New Jersey, but are we failing others at the same time?

Servicing the public service

Public service is often regarded as noble work — thankless jobs for minimal pay. But perhaps the stereotypes are being turned upside down. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, salaries for government workers are beginning to outpace those of private industry employees, at least as an aggregate.

Countless Brown students enter the public workforce annually — for altruistic ideals, for hopes of someday ruling the world, for the promise of loan paybacks. And obviously, we are not alone in our interest. So here's the question: Is this a good thing, because it means that public service is being adequately rewarded? Or does this explain why so many states and municipalities are drowning in debt? Are we being too generous in an attempt to reinforce the public labor force?