What if We Were All Truly Equal?

That is the question being posed at American Thinker.  If we had complete equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, would we be a better society?   I don’t think so.

Why would a person spend over a decade in college to become a surgeon if their outcome (reward) is no greater than the person who spends four years in college or the high school dropout? 

“Success” is highly subjective and is present across the social spectrum.  But whatever the individual definition, the difference between “succeeding” and “existing” is reward.   Consider:

On average, individuals can expect to move from the 20 th percentile of the earnings distribution at the beginning of their career to about the 60 th percentile during their peak earning years.

Plainly put, the person who would rather accept government assistance than a accept a minimum wage job will in all likelihood still be on the bottom of the income ladder years later, while the person who took the low prestige job will have moved up considerably.

Liberals want to neutralize risk and reward.   Strikes me as an utterly boring way to live.  I don’t really care if George Clooney earns millions of dollars for regurgitating lines on cue while my day in and day out grind earns me much, much, less.  The market sets a value on each of our skills.  I would rather that than a Utopian society that makes no distinction based on effort and risk.

Read the American Thinker article.