In Defense of Inequality

This is a perfect time to discuss inequality. After a period of three decades when wage inequality among men in the United States grew to approximate pre-World War II levels, measured inequality apparently has stabilized and may, in fact, be decreasing (Claudia Goldin and Robert A. Margo, 1992). It is, therefore, a good time to assess the changes, to compare the gains and losses. I choose this topic, not to offend, but because I believe inequality is an economic "good" that has received too much bad press. I also think you will agree that it is a good, which like any other, can be scarce or overly abundant. I am neither trying to praise nor defend poverty, and I hope it is understood that the link between wages and income is not especially close, particularly at lower incomes where nonemployment dominates. Wages play many roles in our economy; along with time worked, they determine labor income, but they also signal relative scarcity and abundance, and with malleable skills, wages provide incentives to render the services that are most highly valued. Further, we all buy and sell labor either directly or indirectly as labor is embodied in products. To reverse one of the themes of Milton Friedman's introductory theory class, "one man's poison can be another's meat." Together with rising relative wages, the post-1950 increase in the job-market employment of women is one of our major accomplishments, but it is an accomplishment that has been fueled in part by the low wages earned by those the Census classifies as private household workers, childcare workers, workers in laundries and cleaning establishments, food service workers, etc. As the population ages, the prospect of increasing dependence on personal assistance looms. For the most part, personal assistants and aides earn low wages, wages that extend the services we can afford. Friedman's actual observation is, however, that "one man's meat is not necessarily another's poison" (Friedman, 1976). The relatively high wages earned by physicians, scientists, and university professors have attracted many immigrants to the United States. Would we be better off if they had not immigrated? We could in fact reduce wage inequality by simply proscribing immigration, because the wage distribution of immigrants is U-shaped relative to that of natives (see J. P. Smith and B. Edmonston, 1997 p. 180 [table 5.4] ). My guess is that most economists, faced with such an option, would respond by directing attention to the services immigrants provide. My objective is to examine the recent period of increasing wage inequality with an eye toward the positive. I describe some of the changes that have occurred, speculate about the causes, and wrap up with illustrations of consequences. I contend that growing inequality has created opportunities that have been exploited by many and that the gains are not restricted to the traditional elite. Moreover, when we have adopted policies to mitigate the downside of increasing inequality, which is falling real wages in the lower parts of the distribution, a surprising number of individuals have also capitalized on those opportunities in ways that are not productive. Before turning to the data, I want to make a few general observations. * Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4228. I am indebted to Martin Gritsch for assistance in extracting the data and to Barbara Charlton for secretarial support. I am also indebted to participants in the UCLA/RAND Labor Workshop and especially to Janet Currie and James P. Smith for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. I have drawn heavily on my previous work, much of it in collaboration with Kevin M. Murphy.