Three Sticks — Something for Everyone

Are there times when inequality is acceptable? I know this is a challenging idea for many people. Most of us have grown up with ideas of pension plans, social security, medicare, medicaid and other social programs that attempt to remove inequities between different groups. All of those programs are beneficial and help many who are unable to help themselves. However, the question still remains.

What about in the case of rewording workers for performance. Should one person get paid more than another if they provide a higher level of service or are more productive?

In the United States we have a long standing tradition of the rough, independent pioneer who makes his own way in the world. This idea has morphed over time into the ideal of the self-made man. There are a number of examples of the self-made man in American history from Rockefeller and Carnegie to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Many Americans also have trouble with these rich self-made men. First we revel in and admire their accomplishments and later we attack them for their excess success. Look at the challenges that Standard Oil, Walmart and Microsoft faced with Justice department.

As Americans we are beholden to 2 idealistic concepts. The first is the previously mentioned self-made man concept which suggests that we should earn whatever we get. The second is due to our republican tradition that we are all equal and should be treated the same. These 2 ideals appear to be constantly at odds with each other. But what if there was a way to have these 2 ideals work in harmony?

What if we consider the within our republican ideal of equal treatment that all people will be rewarded based upon the value of the contributions. Essentially, saying that you will get out of the system what you put into the system. Thus the key to success would be based on your hard work rather than your status. By doing so we would make hard work the great equalizer.

There is support in the bible for inequality based on performance or hard work. In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus tells of the Parable of the Loaned Money (also known as the Parable of the Talents). In those verses, a master entrusts 3 servants with a different number of talents (e.g. money). The master expects each servant to increase the talents that he is given. When the master returns, he settles accounts with each servant. The first 2 servants increase their talents and in doing so earn praise and reward from the master. The last servant does nothing with his talents and is rebuked by the master. The master strips him of his talents and gives them to his most productive servant.

These verses are rich with lessons for us to learn, but this article focuses on how Jesus endorses inequality. Here Jesus is teaches us that those who use their talents will be rewarded according to their efforts. Those who increase their output the most will be rewarded the most.

In truth, this is how most of us expect the world to operate. This is especially true of Americans. Unfortunately, we often do not understand the differences between inequality based upon status or position vs. inequality based upon performance or hard work. Historically and in some modern societies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) the origin of your birth determined your position in society. This leads to increased hardship for workers and limits the productivity of workers. In a society where wealth is earned workers and citizens can benefit. If you increase the value to citizens or society as a whole you will be rewarded accordingly just like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or founders of Google.

As James Sherk states in his article, “An Upside to Inequality” in the July 9 & 16, 2007 issue of Businessweek, inequality is neither inherently good nor bad. It instead reflects the underlying values of society. A society in which wealth is earned uses inequality to create new opportunities, offers fairness in compensation and in doing so expands the economy.

Trackback URL for this post.