Just Deserts

Greg Mankiw, the Harvard economist recently published an essay in which he defends the 1%.

Many on the left side of the aisle can be pretty anti-1%.

Harold Pollack did not like Mankiw's defense of the richest among us. Reading through his entry, though, I'm struck by the arguments he makes.  They seem to lack substance or are beside the point.  Let's look at each paragraph individually.

The first paragraph sets up how Pollack admires Mankiw, and he sets up how this isn't a partisan attack. Of course, after reading the first sentence, I'm bracing for criticism.

His second paragraph attempts to associate Mankiw with someone Pollack believes was actively detrimental to helping lower income people.  Notice, he doesn't say anything about what Mankiw officially believes, only that Mankiw worked for someone that believes those things.  This is weak evidence against him.  You have no idea what part Mankiw played in those policy proposals.  Of course, it's not totally negligible, it's just weak.

The third paragraph also contains no substantive argument. He talks about some economists who share the view and ends it with a quotation without discussing it at all. Does Pollack disagree with what Mankiw writes? Why?  Admittedly, not having read Mankiw's original article, I can't say I see the logic, but I trust that Mankiw has provided the correct context for understanding the idea. Pollack says nothing.

Finally, we get to something useful. Pollack includes a paragraph from Mankiw. The paragraph basically says Mankiw doesn't believe his children have better opportunities than he had even though his children are much better off than he was.

Pollack counters that there's income inequality. This, of course, is entirely missing Mankiw's point. Mankiw acknowledges there's income inequality, but he argues that it doesn't cause opportunity inequality.

Then Pollack talks about the lack of wealth mobility. Next he talks about how the top schools enroll the highest income students.  Here, Pollack makes a strong argument that wealthy people have more opportunities/easier access than the poor. He should have stopped here.

He goes on to ask "Why should people's market wages so strongly determine what they deserve to have in life? [Pollack's brother's] just deserts reside in his claim to equal, dignified citizenship, not his meager ability to produce goods and services."

I don't think Mankiw or most Republicans would dispute that all citizens deserve basic services such as healthcare and education. But most of the country believes that when people earn more money they should be allowed to spend it. Pollack seems to be arguing that commanding higher salaries shouldn't lead to consumption disparities, which is just socialism. Is that what he's advocating?