On teachers and hedge fund managers

Today we had a talk from Michael Sandel who opposed the "tyranny of meritocracy" based on money and success with the recognition of the common good--even if hard to define!

With one of his examples, it reminded me of a question that I have heard (and raised myself) many times: why is it that hedge fund managers are paid MUCH more than kindergarten teachers?  The answer of why they should NOT be paid more is clear: a great kindergarten teachers contributes much more to the common good and to the construction of future good societies than a hedge fund manager.

Here a few answers that try to justify the higher income and why I think they do not work:

1. It is about merit: hedge fund managers make a more significant contribution by helping financial markets work and send the right signals.  Since financial markets are the blood of any economy, then they are being paid by their more significant contribution.

This explanation is simply a joke after 2008.  It may be true that finance when supporting production is vital, but what about speculation?  Is it truly contributing to the common good?  Even if it was, is it doing it hundreds of times more than a kindergarten teacher?

2. It is about supply and demand and, therefore, marginal productivity.  This is the favorite neoclassical explanation: in this case, it would imply that many people can be a good teacher (so supply of teachers is high) but few can be good hedge managers (you require sophisticated technical skills like engineering, etc).

This is, again, hard to understand.  First, there are many engineers that are poorly paid.  Second, the supply of really good teachers is not that high, and the market does not seem to know how to recognize quality.  Third, the key concept in the neoclassical theory of value is marginal productivity, which sends us back to what hedge fund managers are really doing.  Are they really being more productive than others?  In what ways?

3. Connected to the previous point, it is about risk.  Investing in the financial sector is much more risky than teaching students so the rewards also need to be higher.  Moreover, surviving that risk and the tension created requires a particular character (again, going back to merit).

Another superficially powerful explanation but rather weak in practice.  Are a lot of hedge fund managers really ending up poor?  Or do they generate enough income to sustain their operations?  And why is "risk" more important than, say, "patience"?  Anyone that has been in a classroom full of three year olds knows how hard to it is to manage them and how skillful one needs to be.

I realize I am not saying anything new, but I just want to emphasize who weak, at the end, the current value system is.  It is not only that the current level of inequality may be morally repulsive. It is that it does not have any clear justification (it is about the market is a weak social explanation) and it is actually leading to a very inefficient and poor allocation of resources.

What am I missing?  Are there other explanations?  I would love to hear from anyone who reads this and has another views.

Reviving social-democracy

As usual Branco Milanovic has a useful blog, this time reviewing a book about the state of the left.  Here the blog entry and here a link to the book.

A two by two table may be useful to summarize some of the arguments being debates and two central debates today:

	Pro-Cosmpolitan	Anti-Cosmopolitan
Pro state-led significant (re)distribution	Traditional social-democracy	Some of the European far-right????
Anti-state-led significant (re)distribution	Progressive neoliberals (‘Third Way a la Clinton, Blair)	Trump

The common argument today is that the coalition between the financial elite and social progressives resulted in policies that promoted cultural equality (recognizing the importance of gender equality, the problem of race, sexual freedoms, etc) while protecting the economic interests of the (financial) elite.  This coalition created a clear group of losers (both culturally but also economically): white men with manufacturing and semi-skilled jobs.    These voters "responded" by starting a cultural counter-revolution that is best represented by Trump.

Several questions emerge here:

a. Does Obama truly fit this description?  What about the Nordic social-democracy (which is losing votes nearly as fast as the left in other countries)?

b. Why did social-democratic parties adopt this kind of agenda?  Was it a result of political calculations?  Selfishness?  Ideology?

c. Most importantly, can't we really not move to the pro-Cosmopolitan, pro-redistribution cell?  Why not?  It is true that there are significant economic constraints towards a model with better employment, particularly in Europe.  Yet improving and even expanding welfare provision is by no means impossible and would benefit more than 50% of the population.  So I still wonder if a narrative around the importance of a sharing economy with redistribution and more state-led innovation is not possible.  It probably just needs better political entrepreneurs, no?

My main concern (which Milanovic has expressed very well in other blogs) is what should be social-democracy's position regarding migration?  An anti-migration position is incoherent and, in my view, unethical.  Yet an open borders position that fails to recognize clear social and economic tensions is also naive... maybe if resolving this problem and improving the broader narrative about a protected future that celebrates all human rights is possible and the key challenge.

Bolsonaro da miedo

Realmente uno se da cuenta de qué distinto piensa la gente a ti cuando alguien como Bolsonaro obtiene un 46% del voto. ¡Qué tristeza y qué miedo!  Mi análisis sobre ello en Agenda Pública: http://agendapublica.elperiodico.com/bolsonaro-nuevo-traspie-para-la-democracia-en-america/

Three quick readings on inequality

1. A 2011 on Slim and the creation of his museum.  He owns 380 Rodin's sculptures and wears 5,000 dollar suits but the journalist still makes an effort to present him as a regular man. Really?

"The 71-year-old lives in a modest six-bedroom house a mile from his office, and has no interest in flashy super-yachts or palatial houses around the world. His grey pinstripe suit may be made by Brioni, the fine Italian tailors, but his watch is a very ordinary-looking plain dial with a leather strap. His black leather loafers are shiny, but no more brilliant than any other self-respecting Mexican businessman’s."

2. A bottle of whisky was just sold for US$1.1m... yes, that is right, more than a million dollars!!!!!! (and, incredibly, it is not the first time)

3. On a more optimistic note, Oxfam in general and Oxfam-Mexico have done really interesting work on inequality.  They have now teamed up with the e-paper Chilango to produce a series of really interesting articles on how people from different classes live.   This special issue is really worth reading. 

Inequality should be explored from the social and not individual perspective

I just re-read, Gregory Mankiw's (in)famous defense of the top 1%, where he implicitly or explicitly argues that: (a) inequality results from payments for significant contributions to society; and (b) inequality does not lead to inefficient economic outcomes or harms equality of opportunities.   The paper also criticizes Raw's defense of income redistribution. 

This paper (as many other discussions of inequality) tend to adopt an individual-based approach (not surprisingly coming from neoclassical economics).  The questions are about individual incentives, individual just or unjust payments, comparative levels of utility, Pareto efficiency (that is, can we make somebody better without making anyone worse), etc.  But is this the best perspective?  What about if we adopt a social perspective?  What is we assume that our responsibility is to use resources in a way that everyone can live better while minimizing the costs on the environment?

If we adopt that and only that approach, three questions become central:

a. Won't a more equal distribution of income improve societies' ability to provide  enough income and rights to live a good life to everyone?

b. Is there any evidence to assume that a jump from high inequality to low inequality (not to perfect equality which is an unrealistic goal) will lead to significant costs in terms of economic growth?

c. Is there any evidence that the creators of Apple, Harry Potter or ET (to name the people that Mankiw uses in his defense of the rich) would not have made exactly the same contributions with less income rewards?  Why is it that Steve Jobs in the discussion of his life and success at Stanford does not mention money but dreams and passion?

I think there is increasing evidence that the answer to each of these yes, no and no: there is just no doubt that societies will be better off and we will meet our obligations to each other in low inequality environments than high ones.