Equality and neoliberalism...

Ken at Mel-Anon had an interesting post this morning on the relationship between identity politics and inequality. I am sympathetic to many of the arguments made by leftists that we must reduce our focus on identity traits and focus more on socioeconomic status. I am, however, not willing to go with Walter Benn Michaels to this level:

"It is neoliberalism, not racism or sexism (or homophobia or ageism) that creates the inequalities that matter most in American society; racism and sexism are just sorting devices."

I will be the first to admit that neoliberalism has an array of faults, not the least of which is instinctively moving to the muddled middle on many policy issues without much forethought. I don't believe, however, that it is wise to claim that racism and sexism are "sorting devices" and are not part of a real social issue. It is my belief that we can combat sexism, racism, bigotry and inequality all at the same time. The key is education. Both access and equality. Through whatever means work... be it vouchers, more public funds, higher taxes, etc. One area that I definitely feel is critical is access to university education. This means reinvigorating the Pell grant system, upping the ante on programs like Teach for America and such. A key part to a successful change in our educational system is for entrenched ideologues to rethink if their position is really advancing access and quality of education, or merely toeing the party line (and there are lots of party lines in this field).

More from Michaels:

A standard measure of economic inequality is through the Gini coefficient, where 0 represents perfect equality (everybody makes the same), and 1 perfect inequality (one person makes everything). The Gini coefficient for the us in 2006 was 0.470 (back in 1968 it was 0.386). That of Germany today is 0.283, that of France, 0.327. Americans still love to talk about the American Dream—as, in fact, do Europeans. But the Dream has never been less of a reality than it is today. Not just because inequality is so high, but also because social mobility is so low; indeed, lower than in both France and Germany. Anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream by learning German and moving to Berlin than by staying at home.

This paragraph bothers me, quite a lot. I think it bothers me so because I tend to agree with most of the basic premise of the argument - that socioeconomic inequality in the United States is a major issue - but this paragraph does little to enlighten this point. Let us deconstruct a bit: First, the Gini coefficient is not really a standard measure of inequality. It is a measure of income dispersion, but - as with most single stats - a failure to understand the underlying data makes its value fall significantly. I actually believe a review of the underlying data relating population percentages to income percentages in a ratio analysis based on the Lorenz curve quintiles would be interesting, and likely aide the point being made. Additionally, the Gini coefficient should only be compared across data that uses the same premises. The primary example here is that in the US benefits (health care) are not normally included in gross income computations, while in many European nations they are. What is the effect? Well, the cost for health insurance coverage offered by a single employer is likely the same for each employee (no matter how much that employee makes unless they had a progressive co-payment, novel?). How big of a difference this makes is debatable, but to use the Gini with no qualifications as a clear numerical comparison between nations is a bit overzealous.

Now to the part that is crazy -- Of course Americans and others love to talk of the American Dream, because it is real and a motivating factor for lots of people. To say that the dream is less of a reality today than... EVER, is completely bunk. Tell that to the generations of, yes, women and minorities that had NO chance to live the dream. To make such an inflammatory and patently untrue statement in what was already a fairly strongly opined piece is to, in my opinion, beg for criticism. As to the social mobility, I would point to the paragraph below, which highlights that Germany still makes decisions that greatly effect a child's ability to be mobile at age ten. Additionally, both France and Germany have very significant issues with immigration and reconciling their societies to the influx of Islamic immigrants. (I have little doubt that there is a lot of xenophobia here in the US.) To say that anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream in Germany is, to say the least, a big stretch. I have little doubt that they would receive a much better social safety net (which is good, and something the US must work on.), but there are lots of costs that come with that trade-off. I remind you, there is a reason the term is "American Dream." America is by no means perfect, and the growing inequality underlying the piece by Mr. Michaels is a real subject for discussion, but to devolve into a "America is the bastion of evil" mentality is, perhaps, a bit premature.

Before going to far with the Germany is a bastion of equality, one may wish to review this week's Economist, which has an interesting article on Germany's attempt at education reform.

Germany is one of the few European countries that still divides children up at the age of ten. The cleverest go to Gymnasien, the main route to university; the ordinary are sent to Realschulen; and the dullards attend Hauptschulen, often breeding-grounds for disaffection.