There was one part of John Taylor's essay on the late Gary Becker that particularly stood out for me. Taylor quotes Becker below.
“We have seen income distribution widen in the United States and other countries” and that reflects “a particular problem with the education and training of those at the lower end of the income distribution.” He advised that “The aim of policy reforms in this field should be to help stimulate economic growth by encouraging better quality and more effective schooling and training, especially for those at the bottom and middle of the human capital distribution.” This “will both raise economic growth and also reduce inequality in earnings.”
Becker acknowledges that inequality has been growing in the United States. Also, by suggesting policy reform to tackle inequality he indirectly acknowledges that rising inequality is a problem. However, in contrast to Piketty, Becker suggests that we tighten the income distribution by bringing up those at the bottom. Piketty suggests tightening the income distribution by imposing high taxes (at 80%) to bring down those at the very top. Given the reception that Piketty has received, it seems that many people agree.
Becker's approach of raising those with poor education and training seems to be a much more positive and uplifting message than Piketty's of bringing down the people at the top and disincentivising those who wish to work hard to reach the top. I am surprised and slightly saddened that Becker's positive ideas are taking backstage to Piketty's negative ideas in this important debate. I hope that that will change, but I expect that it will not.
“We have seen income distribution widen in the United States and other countries” and that reflects “a particular problem with the education and training of those at the lower end of the income distribution.” He advised that “The aim of policy reforms in this field should be to help stimulate economic growth by encouraging better quality and more effective schooling and training, especially for those at the bottom and middle of the human capital distribution.” This “will both raise economic growth and also reduce inequality in earnings.”
Becker acknowledges that inequality has been growing in the United States. Also, by suggesting policy reform to tackle inequality he indirectly acknowledges that rising inequality is a problem. However, in contrast to Piketty, Becker suggests that we tighten the income distribution by bringing up those at the bottom. Piketty suggests tightening the income distribution by imposing high taxes (at 80%) to bring down those at the very top. Given the reception that Piketty has received, it seems that many people agree.
Becker's approach of raising those with poor education and training seems to be a much more positive and uplifting message than Piketty's of bringing down the people at the top and disincentivising those who wish to work hard to reach the top. I am surprised and slightly saddened that Becker's positive ideas are taking backstage to Piketty's negative ideas in this important debate. I hope that that will change, but I expect that it will not.
