Inequality seems to be a real-life outcome, and loyalists shouldn’t ignore it.
Hemsley’s shrunken rewards, the paper reported in the deadpan tone of its “CEO Pay Watch” feature, totaled $28 million.
C.S. Lewis said that a young atheist can never be too careful about his reading — meaning that encounters with great religious writers can undermine the most determined unbelief.
These days, an aging believer in the rationality of the free-market economy can hardly be careful enough to avoid doubt-inducing suggestions that something has recently gone haywire in the extreme concentration of income and wealth among the rich.
The “CEO Pay Watch” regularly delivers disorienting glimpses through the looking glass and into the wonderland of the super-wealthy, where Hemsley’s kingly pay is notable but not unheard of.
Even worse, impeccably reliable reports from the Congressional Budget Office and credible economists confirm that inequality has been growing dramatically since roughly the late 1970s. Economic gains have been flowing overwhelmingly to the well-to-do and even more strikingly to the elite of the elite — the top 1 percent of the income distribution, even the top half-percent.
This trend appears to be a fact, even if Barack Obama believes it (along with Paul Krugman and the Occupy Wall Street crowd). Conservatives and libertarians, the free market’s loyalists, may soon have to engage the growing debate over inequality more constructively. Covering our eyes and decrying “class warfare” may not suffice politically for long.
Besides, our era’s remarkable increase in inequality is, like all facts, interesting.
“So what?” is of course the orthodox free marketeer response to rumors of rising inequality. If the market is making high achievers richer compared with everyone else, it must be for the best, inspiring effort and creativity and ultimately more prosperity for all, and it must be justified, with individuals’ rewards reflecting actual economic contributions.
There’s truth in all that, but if it’s your only response, you had best not read one of the most-discussed books of the year, French economist Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
It goes without saying that Piketty is a man of the left — did I mention he is a French economist? But his book is a data-rich and thought-provoking history of income distribution that makes it hard not to worry about the path today’s economy is on.
Much simplified, Piketty’s story is that inequality was enormous at the start of the 20th century — everywhere, but especially in Europe, with its entrenched aristocracies. Then, for roughly half a century between 1930 and 1980, inequality significantly narrowed. Piketty says this came about through the ravages of two world wars and the advent of many redistributionist policies, ranging from expanded education to high taxes on the rich.
But since about 1980, inequality has grown once again — everywhere, but especially in the United States, where things are just about back to where they were a century ago.
Also distinctive about the American situation, Piketty writes, is that the growth of inequality here is mainly due not to inherited wealth but to the appearance of unprecedented inequality in income from labor. See the “CEO Pay Watch.”
Piketty makes two arguments that are particularly discomforting to a defender of the unfettered market. First, that today’s trend is not the way it was supposed to be according to free-market devotees; and second, that this trend is nonetheless perfectly natural, even inevitable in the absence of extreme events like the world wars and all that followed from them.
It’s true that the traditional promise of a dynamic capitalist economy was that it would produce not equality but a broader distribution of wealth than was known in stagnant aristocratic societies. Today’s trajectory raises questions about that.
As for the naturalness of rising inequality, Piketty has an intriguing theory about the inevitable concentration of accumulated wealth. But America’s special situation — where soaring pay among the elite, particularly soaring executive pay, plays a dominant role in increasing inequality — sends one back to pondering Hemsley’s $28 million payday.
There is, after all, a certain logic in a CEO’s pay rising to dizzying heights, given the huge scale of today’s business enterprises. UnitedHealth Group reported net earnings last year of $5.6 billion. Hemsley’s total eye-popping compensation, in short, is just one-half of 1 percent of what’s at stake under his leadership. Paying it may make sense for shareholders.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.