Can we talk about the apparent confusion evinced by conservatives whenever they sincerely or insincerely talk about “hard work” in the context of market mechanisms for resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences as over resources using economic power? It’s comical.
First, the kernel of truth. In certain micro contexts hard work may indeed affect economic outcomes. Let’s say one puts in some extra hours or gets a higher rating or say if two students have similar abilities, maybe one works harder, does better in class. That’s not the issue. The issue is that in any sort of general or broader economic context it’s clearly false. Hard work is far from being a major factor in the US system for distributing economic power and hence allocating resources via markets. May help a bit in certain contexts, but hardly dispositive generally.
Let’s do the easy case first, shall we? Consider passive investment returns from existing capital, wealth, the latter possibly coming from any random source including inheritance or whatever but to avoid confusion let’s assume for now due entirely to one’s “hard work.” If one has managed to accumulate, say, $2 M, then when it comes to new income, increases in one’s economic power / wealth, a typical investment paying, say, 10 percent gives an income of $200 K per year, incidentally taxed rather lower than the same income from wages. That new income or increment to one’s economic power has nothing to do with hard work. Indeed, it has nothing to do with work at all. One may be as indolent, lazy, as one likes and receive that income, assuming only one manages to drag one’s rear end to a computer and invest the money.
One may be thinking, why look at the tails of the distribution? Look at the usual case. The funny thing about the highly unequal distribution of economic power in the US is that a great deal of economic activity, income, wealth involves the tail of the distributions, the extremes. It’s relevant. How many have at least $2 M and thus correspond to my example? AI told me 10 percent. So what percentage of income do they get? One might think inquiring minds would like to know, but I was unable to find that information. Whatever people suppose is relevant to equity, it’s apparently not that. Returning to the general importance of the tails of the distribution in US economics, the top 10 percent by income took 49 percent of total income, while the top 10 percent by economic power / wealth has 68 percent of total wealth. References? Again, just AI. I’m not doing a dissertation, I’m just saying income, like wealth / economic power, is highly unequal in the USA with the elites claiming a considerable portion of both. Perhaps it permits me to suggest income from wealth may be a major factor in income?
Moving on to situations in which hard work may play more of a role, what do you suppose is the significance of hard work relative to other factors as innate talents and abilities, childhood education and circumstances, family connections, chance, macro events, anything not under one’s control? Oddly or perhaps entirely as expected, it’s rather difficult to find data on that issue as well, consistent with my now long ago foray into labor economics. Makes one wonder what economists do all day, and what people are thinking about when it comes to their ethical beliefs on equity issues. Actually, while trying and failing to find data on basic issues, I did see clues about what issues may be important to others. Based on the plethora of sites meant to help one determine where one fits in the ranks, I suspect any thinking about equity issues may for many hinge mostly on that. I suppose that may explain how the modern conservative, Republican movement came to include both pro-status quo and anti-status quo types; establishment conservatives, Republicans and anti-establishment conservatives, Republicans; prevent any change types and radical, extreme, revolutionary types. In particular, I suspect conservatives, Republicans satisfied with where they are in the various rankings conclude we must have a near-enough utopian “free market” and are thus concerned to defend the status quo against liberal / progressives / democratic leftists who want to change things up. At the same time, conservatives, Republicans dissatisfied with where they fall in the various rankings conclude the status quo has already been rendered illegitimate by leftist voters in democracy and only radical, extreme, revolutionary anti-democracy fascism can generate truly “free markets” now. What I suppose few do, are equipped to do, are interested to do, is think critically about how systems for allocating economic power and hence resources in markets actually work or about the ethics of how interpersonal conflicts of preferences as over resources should be resolved, equity issues.
It’s perfectly fine with me if one wants to argue for a world in which hard work is a major determinant of resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences and thus allocating scarce resources, as opposed to abilities, talents, luck, need, the other factors currently involved. I’m suggesting be real. It’s not what we have now nor what happens in “free markets” nor even in unreal perfectly competitive markets. If one is after that, one will want to do quite a bit of regulatory adjustment, non-market correction / augmentation, distributive policy, that sort of thing. When one thinks about normative equity issues, one really should move beyond intuitively and superficially appealing feel-good stories promoted to deceive and manipulate. Just think seriously, honestly, critically about it, understanding the incentive of others to tell self-serving stories.
