Photo: Wikipedia |
An article about
“equal pay,” which appeared on my screen recently, caught my eye. The article was
entitled, “What Happens When Two Monkeys are Paid Unequally for the Same Work?”
The embedded video was clipped from a TED talk by Frans de Waal, primatologist,
ethologist, and professor of primate behavior at Emory University, who talked
about the “fairness study” as it involved the pillars of morality, reciprocity
and empathy. His study was done with Capuchin monkeys who appeared to “reject unequal
pay.” http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next?g=3
The outcome
of the monkey video embedded bears no resemblance to the economics of
remuneration but, to the untrained mind, it seems to validate the snowflakes’
mantra that we should all receive equal pay because it is our human right.
These days, in the progressive philosophy, all welfare and the results of human
activity are a human right bestowed upon us by the generous and omnipotent
government that receives its money and generosity from thin air and money
trees.
If two
Capuchin monkeys were given cucumbers, they were perfectly happy. If one monkey
was given grapes, the results were different. Using new monkeys who have not
done the task before, the results were comical.
The two monkeys
paid the human with a rock first and then received the treat, either cucumber
or grapes. The monkey on the left got cucumbers and the monkey on the right
received grapes. The first piece of cucumber was fine, the monkey ate it,
however, after she saw the monkey on the right receiving grapes, a better
tasting treat, the first monkey rejected the next slice of cucumber and threw
it in apparent displeasure back to the human running the experiment. Each time
the monkey received cucumber, she was agitated, banged and rattled the glass
enclosure and threw the cucumber back. As the presenter said, this is the “Wall
Street” protest on display, the audience erupted in laughter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoK48QGL8
This may
seem like a convenient lesson of Economics 101 and why all Capuchin monkeys should
be paid equally for the price of a rock, however, it is more a lesson on malicious
Envy, a deadly sin.
Keynesian
economics, taught in our colleges and universities, tells us that “The United
States has rather more income inequality than most other industrialized
countries,” and “The distribution of income in the United States has grown
substantially more unequal since about 1980.” (Economics Principles and Policy,
William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder, tenth edition, p. 450)
First of
all, we are not Capuchin monkeys. Secondly, food is not income, nor pay, unless
we live in a primitive society and use food as commodity money.
Thirdly, progressives
recite the politically correct talking points that agitate and enrage them, demanding
equal pay, an economic impossibility. They have failed to learn in school the real causes of income inequality.
1. Differences in ability (Some of us can do math faster, some are better wordsmiths,
some program computers more accurately, some run faster, some can play an
instrument, and some are born with poor health due to genetic mutations or have
different IQs.)
2. Differences in intensity of work (Some like or are able to work longer hours without making
mistakes)
3. Risk taking
(Entrepreneurs gamble sometimes all they have and win, other times they lose
and start all over again with the same energy and curiosity)
4. Compensating wage differentials (Some people work the night shift or work very dangerous
jobs that other people are not willing to take; consequently they must be paid
more as an incentive to work.)
5. Schooling and other types of training (Those who go to college and receive a degree with an
employable skill are going to receive higher pay upon graduation; those who
choose to end their learning with a high school diploma or a worthless college degree
with no possibility of employment at the end of four years, will experience an
income differential that they will not like but it was based on a voluntary
decision.)
6. Work experience
(Research has proven that workers with more experience earn higher wages.)
7. Inherited wealth (Children of wealth can go to more expensive schools and can finance
businesses and thus potential success; there is no guarantee that inherited
wealth will make one successful but, in most cases, it is quite beneficial; Chelsea
Clinton received a very high salary on her first job even though she had no
experience whatsoever in the field, it was based strictly on nepotism.)
8. Luck (Chance
and luck play important part in income inequality. Someone develops an idea
that makes him/her a multi-millionaire. At the same time, thousands others toil
for years on great ideas that never take off.)
When it
comes to unequal pay due to economic
discrimination, Americans find this intolerable. Economic discrimination,
according to Economics 101, happens when equal factors of production receive
different payments for equal contributions to output. This sounds great in
theory but in practice, how do you measure, each and every time that two
factors of production are equivalent; it is always a subjective determination,
not a precise and objective one.
You may
spend eight hours a day at your desk but your productivity may be half of
someone else’s because you spent part of the time day dreaming, surfing, taking
breaks, talking to your co-workers, playing computer games, and not turning
your assigned report on time. Should you get paid the same as another person
who completed twice as much work as you in eight hours? In the case of assembly
line production, it is easier to measure productivity based on the number of
widgets you produce.
Even Keynesian
economists agree that “equality is bought at a price” and that there are better
ways to promote equality by seeking policies that do the least possible harm to
incentives and efficiency in the economy. They prefer redistribution of income
to fight poverty. “Neither complete
laissez faire nor complete equality would normally be
society’s optimal choice.”
Centralized planning
economics has experimented with equal incomes for most professions, and failed
miserably in every communist country it was tried, with disastrous effects.
People became even lazier than they are by nature, hid and slept part of the
day instead of working, pretended to work because they knew the commies pretended
to pay them, justified stealing from work to supplement income, and developed a
black market in order to survive.
Charles
Murray and Richard Herrnstein, a social critic and a psychologist, wrote a
book, The Bell Curve, which became
rather controversial due to the claims made on the distribution of IQ tests on
a bell curve. Most people clustered in the middle, with fewer at both ends.
As Baumol and
Blinder said, “No one doubts that intelligence contributes to economic success,
nor that genetics has some bearing on intelligence.” But some argue that
environmental factors are more important than genetics in determining
intelligence and that “true” intelligence is different from test-measured
intelligence. I might add common sense, which is not so common anymore, to the
list of economic success. Cognitive ability is certainly not the main
ingredient in economic success. Why else would a ball player and some actors make
so much money? They have a unique skill or talent that most people don’t have.
To sum it up
simply, we are not Capuchin monkeys, envy is a sin, and, in my humble experience,
progressive equal pay at all levels is a utopian communist promise that cannot be
fulfilled; it is just equal misery for all.
One of the best things you have ever written. Please post more articles on the basic principles that can be understood by all those with no background knowledge in the science of economics.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Chriss. I will try. The former Economics teacher in me comes out once in a while. LOL
ReplyDelete