What's Wrong With Inequality?

­­            Gary Cutting of the New York Times conducted a very interesting and insightful interview with Elizabeth Anderson, an author and professor of philosophy and women’s studies at the University of Michigan.  The interview circled mostly around the various types of inequalities in the world, and some of Anderson’s ideas about the relationships within these inequalities and possible solutions. 

One issue Anderson brought up that caught me by surprise was the idea of inequalities of standing, which is when certain people’s interests are weighed more heavily than others. The example she gives is in a law firm, where it might “promote a culture of off-hours socializing over drinks between partners and associates that excludes women who need to spend time with their children.”  This thought had never occurred to me before, but after thinking it over, I realized that especially in white collar jobs (which tend to hold more social and economic power than their blue collar counterparts), there is this a strong underlying culture revolving around very 20^th century traditions.  Meeting associates or potential clients for drinks, cigars or even at strip clubs is still a fairly common event, and while there is no law or technicality that limits women from participating, the culture remains a very androcentric one.

            Another interesting point that Anderson brought up was her disagreement with what she calls “luck egalitarianism.”  This is the idea that “people should suffer from the consequences of their choices they’ve freely made, but be protected against losses that they couldn’t have avoided.”  She brings up the example of basketball, and how just because a taller person might have more opportunities to play professional basketball, it doesn’t make it unfair, as this is based on merit they were lucky enough to be born with and not a societally imposed advantage. She goes on to say that there is nothing wrong with choosing people based on unique talents, as long as everyone is granted the same opportunities to develop their talents, which isn’t true in today’s society. I found this to be a great point, because the reality is, nature cares nothing for human desire. We are thrown into the world dealt a certain deck of cards, and that’s simply what we must deal with. However, if we lived in a world where everyone was granted equal opportunity, then everyone’s strengths would hold equal value in the world. The aspiration to achieve a world like this is something I believe everyone should strive for, regardless of gender, race, etc.

            The one subject Anderson talked about that I am in serious disagreement with, is her solution to wealth inequality: “Outright cash transfers to the poor have been found to be hugely successful in promoting productivity in many places, including brazil, Kenya and even North Carolina.” I don’t know where these statistics came from, but I can say from a lot of personal experience, this would be a huge waste of money, given the current socioeconomic environment of America. Growing up in New York City, I was exposed to both great amounts of affluence along with great amounts of poverty. I’ve found that more well-off people fail to grasp the mindset of those who live in poverty. Most who received cash wouldn’t utilize it to better their education or invest it. Instead it would be used for things that provide more short term satisfaction or benefits, like clothing, food, cars etc. This isn’t the fault of those who live in poverty, it's simply the result of growing up in an environment where materialistic things are held in higher regard and the long term benefits of things like starting a business or getting a higher education aren’t even considered.