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

No pay, no gain?

A recent New York Times article surrounding the legality of unpaid internship unleashed a flurry of responses, all debating whether ambitious college kids are being cheated of their time and money by working for free.

But the legal question is not the only facet of the debate over internships. Do unpaid internships increase or decrease prosperity in the long term? Do they stratify socioeconomic divides? Do they perpetuate an advantage already held by those who can afford to work for free?

Most argue, yes — "the less fortunate were missing out on a large swath of internship opportunities … (because of) the disparity between those who have the means to work for free and those who don’t."

The legal question rarely reaches the table because the conversation is "discussed in terms of the potential exclusion of students who don’t have rich parents from opportunities."

Nearly all internships in the federal government are unpaid, as well as those in countless industries, and the numbers are only growing as the economy worsens. It is a known fact that college internships often lead to jobs. And so a larger question that must be asked is, if unpaid internships determine the barrier to entry in certain fields, will these arenas become economically homogeneous? Are we taking a giant step backward in regard to financial opportunity?

An argument in favor of unpaid internships can just as easily be made. College students are awarded the opportunity to look inside an industry that they might not otherwise have been able to gain exposure to. The classic argument is that internships offer a "foot in the door."

In the case of government or nonprofit internships, students are helping to further a cause and work for the public good. And internships are not, by necessity, exclusionary. Many national and university-based grants exist for students with unpaid internships, with preference given to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

Do unpaid internships qualify under Rawls's "justice as fairness" provision?

According to one summarization, Rawls's proposal can be boiled down to the following two points:

1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Unpaid internships clearly fail the test when the second point is brought into the conversation. Though there are no explicit barriers to the positions, opportunity cost keeps the jobs from being open to all members of society. And unpaid internships clearly are not to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. But does that mean they should be dismissed altogether?

While all students may not have the economic liberty to engage in a job where they will receive no payment, internships provide undeniable levels of opportunity. According to welfare-based principles, "material goods and services have no intrinsic value and are valuable only in so far as they increase welfare." Though there is no immediate monetary value that results from an unpaid internship, the long-term benefits in experience and networking ultimately do increase welfare. And when an intern is serving a nonprofit or the public sector, welfare for all theoretically increases as well.

So while it probably should not be legal for a for-profit company to shirk their interns — a matter the Department of Labor is already looking into — unpaid internships all across the board should not be dismissed out of hand. As long as opportunities are made available to all students, through counseling from universities, grants and stipends, unpaid internships do have the potential to further societal and personal welfare.

The games we play

Monopoly's origins are contentious, but the popular board game has been in circulation since at least the early 1900s. Some historians trace it back to a British game introduced in 1904, "The Landlord's Game," which was intended to demonstrate the dangers of capitalism to children. The British viewed board games as "an instrument of moral instruction." Ironically, when the game was exported to the United States and patented by Hasbro in 1935, it became the ultimate exemplification of personal success and self-enterprise.

Monopoly is about "gouging and exploiting," a zero-sum game in which winning means that all other players have gone bankrupt. The game requires no skill — just a simple roll of the dice — and results in a wealth distribution that John Rawls would dub "arbitrary from the moral point of view." (1)

Despite any moral judgments that can be made about the game, Monopoly is a household name, holding the record as the best-selling board game in the world and boasting over 500 million players throughout its existence. Countless adaptations have been spawned — a version for children, editions based on popular television shows and boards honoring particular cities. The phrases of the game have become part of the American vernacular. (Just think about how many times you have been told "do not pass go.")

The game follows the liberal principles set out by John Locke and Adam Smith (in theory) — the rules are acceptable to the people who live, or in this case, play, under them. Anyone who participates in a game of monopoly understands that while someone will win and gain prosperity, everyone else will lose along the way. But unlike the founding principles of classic liberalism, the board game denies the role of hard work (there is no "best way" to roll a dice) and it does not permit all who play to succeed. It is a game of winner-takes-all; a state in which all that matters is the sum in your bank account.

John Stuart Mill would be appalled at the game. In applying his theory to political economy, he affirmed that "the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer." (2) Monopoly advocates the opposite: get rich as a direct result of inflicting poverty on the poor soul who happened to land on your property.

Economics Professor Ralph Anspach felt similarly and in the 1970s, created "Anti-Monopoly" — a more "philosophically pleasing alternative." After being challenged by his students to show the dark side of monopolistic practices through an equally fun activity, he designed the board game. The goal in his version: destroy and dismantle economic monopolies.

(Somewhat ironically, he was sued by Hasbro for the use of their trademarked name. He won the suit, an event he framed as a direct illustration of what his game aims to do: the little guy fighting back against "Big Business." He continued marketing the game and views his secondary purpose as ensuring that the origins of Monopoly, as a game intended to warn about the capitalist dangers it now applauds, survives.) (3)

Regardless of which game best illustrates capitalism — The Landlord's Game, Monopoly or its antithesis — all demonstrate routes to prosperity. So which is the most fair? The most adherent to liberal principles? Should those who accumulate wealth, even if by luck, be punished? Or should all the spoils be (no pun intended) fair game?

From Rawls' perspective, and from the viewpoint of those who developed the idea of "luck egalitarianism" from his principles, there must be a mechanism to correct for the chance-based poverty. Rolling a two versus rolling a seven should not — in Monopoly or in life — seal an individual to an impoverished future. He proclaimed justice as fairness, not justice as "draw chance chard." As long as there was something to prevent extreme and unfair poverty, Rawls would probably be willing to play any of the three board games.

If you handed Mill Monopoly, he would probably behave like the toddler who throws the game he does not want to play on the floor. In countries that have already undergone development, he calls for "better distribution," and shows only disdain for wealthy individuals who increase their holdings simply because they can. He speaks of "levelling institutions," and could therefore, probably get behind Anspach's Anti-Monopoly. The Landlord's Game, with its warnings about the dangers of capitalism and amassing wealth, would probably also appeal to Mill.

If Adam Smith is to be taken literally, he would disagree with all three games. Every player performs the same tasks — however will the society inside the board game survive?

Regardless, it is reasonably safe to say that it would not be enjoyable to play Monopoly with any of these three theorizing men. After all, it is just a game.

_____

(1) Tomasi, John. Market Democracy: Property, Equality and the New American Dream, 2009. Chap. 2

(2) Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, 1848. IV.6.5

(3) Williams, Juan. "Monopoly." NPR: Morning Edition, Nov. 25, 2002. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/monopoly/index.html