What's Wrong with Inequality?

This week I read the New York Times interview with Elizabeth Anderson entitled, "What's wrong with Inequality?". This article peaked my interest in a couple of different ways. After reading the article and digesting it I have decided that I agree and disagree with some of Anderson's main points. I agree with her social arguments that our society has to gain more tolerance for those who are stigmatized in a certain group. But I disagree that equality in banking and economic factors is a solution to inequality.

When Anderson first started the interview she was asked about "democratic equality" which is suppose to mean treating everyone as equals. She brings up an important point that I personally like to stress when talking about equality in any situation. There will never be true equality and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Last semester while in my Transnational Feminism class, we talked about inequality and the impact it has on society but what equality means to each person. We discussed how the simple difference between man and woman should not be equal. I don't want to be equal to me but I want the same equality a man treats another man with. Those two things are different in respect to how I want to be represented and how I treated. I like being represented as a woman but I want to be treated (as everyone should be) as a human being. Equality is one of those scary taboos that society can't seem to wrap their head around when brought into a broader perspective. Anderson breaks this down into three different social hierarchies that have displayed inequality with no chance of change. Anderson breaks it down into the first being negligence of the disabled, the slave master complex (who owns who), and stigmatism of other groups. This is break down shows the ignorance and expectation we hold over everyone to try and fit into this perfect expectation we all have. Of course this is the fuel that feeds the fire that is inequality.

Anderson dives more into the issue of inequality relating it to the economy and the basis of financial incentives. “That objection depends on unrealistic ideas about how incentives work. Current justifications for extreme inequality of income and wealth grossly exaggerate their positive incentive effects, and underestimate their negative effects... there is virtually no correlation between pay and performance for top executives. Studies show that excessive incentives for work requiring innovative thinking can actually depress productivity by focusing people’s minds on money rather than the task at hand.” (Anderson/NY Times) This statement stuck out to me because she says in her article that inequality is driven from power. Anderson claims that there is no direct correlation between incentives and harder work. Going off of personal bias I do not agree with this statement. I believe that there will always be winners and losers in everything in life, to say that not having an incentive such as money to drive someone to success is to say that most companies goals breed inequality because their biggest incentive is money. Or in simpler terms, I should change the course of my life to something other than the need to acquire a generous income. That’s why I’m in college, to have more money. With Anderson's point of trying to make money less of an incentive is something that I can’t agree with because I don’t think I should have less money for working hard because others are not as fortunate.