In a recent posting, colleague Jason Childs points out how well off even (comparatively) poor people are in Canada and asks, "Why is there so much concern about relative poverty?"
The general objection to relative poverty is that it is somehow unfair that some people have a lot more than others. Why is it unfair? Why do we care that somebody else has more, or less, than we do? Is it reasonable to care?
He offers three possible answers:
- "An incredibly cynical view is that there are a remarkably large number of people who benefit from 'helping' the poor. There are social workers paid quite healthy incomes to help those receiving social assistance live on 20% of what a social worker earns. ...The cynicism arises when we consider that if we stopped believing that the person receiving $12,000 a year needed extra help, that person would be out of a job that pays much better than average."
I don't see that this view is so incredibly cynical. The more I watch individuals in the "helping" professions trying to convert reasonable people into victims, the more I think he has a valid point. It is as if "helpers" are playing the game, "You're not okay; I'm okay." - "Most religions prohibit envy, yet some in Canada seem to be making a positive fetish of it. If I’m earning enough to live comfortably and enjoy some reasonable luxuries how does it harm me if you can have more luxuries?"
Most of us have interdependent utility functions. If you are made better off, then I'm happy and my utility is increased. But if I don't know you or if for some reason I don't like you, then there is a chance that when you are made better off, it actually makes me feel worse off. Maybe we shouldn't be this way, but we have to accept that humans seem hard-wired to have these utility functions.
A variation on interdependent utility functions is the envy that Professor Childs writes about: "You have it; I want it; therefore I'm worse off, and it is somebody else's obligation to make me feel better."
Given that people seem to have these feelings, my concern is not the normative one, telling people they shouldn't feel envy. Rather, my concern is that because of envy we implement far too many policies that make us all worse off in the long run. - "The other reason why people might be concerned with relative poverty is a mistaken belief that we are playing a zero sum game. People think that someone else being rich automatically means that someone must be poor. That is simply false." To which I can only add, "Hear! Hear!"
Let me just emphasize the second point a bit more. Envy is pernicious. It eats away at us, making us feel worse off when, were it not for envy, we would feel at least as well off when someone else does well financially or materially.
But even worse are the policies that emanate from the economics and politics of envy. Too often we hear things like, "It isn't fair that they (e.g. professional athletes) earn so much and I (or some downtrodden group) have so little." This envy leads directly to redistributionist policies which destroy incentives among both the well-to-do and the less-well-to-do.
If envy is something that must be resisted on moral, philosophical, or religious grounds, it is even more important that it be resisted on political grounds.