Public Services and Equality
Lane Kenworthy makes a point that’s simultaneously a bit obvious and also widely overlooked—high-quality public services are a highly egalitarian measure even when they’re not at all “targeted” or explicitly designed to curb inequality. The reason is that even in a pretty flat tax system, the bulk of the tax money comes from rich people (since they have the bulk of the money) whereas the value of the services is distributed more equally:
Imagine an America in which high-quality public services raise the consumption floor to a high level: most citizens can put their kids in high-quality child care followed by good public schooling and affordable access to a good college; they have access to good health care throughout life; they can get to or near work on clean and efficient public transportation or roads with limited congestion; they enjoy clean and safe neighborhoods, parks, roads, museums, libraries, and other public spaces; they have low-cost access to information, communication, and entertainment via reliable high-speed broadband; they have four weeks of paid vacation each year, an additional week or so of paid sickness leave, and a year of paid family leave to care for a child or other needy relative. Even if the degree of income inequality were no less than today and we still had CEOs, financiers, and entertainers raking in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in a single year, that society would be markedly less unequal than our current one.
Something missing from this list that I would add is public safety. The prevailing high levels of violent crime in the United States have an impact that’s very strongly borne by people in the bottom half of the income spectrum. That the poorest people would live in the less-safe part of town is more-or-less built into the structure of income inequality, but it’s very possible to have a country where the “less-safe” part of town is still dramatically safer than are the unsafe parts of the contemporary United States.
But this entire phenomenon tends to get discussed pretty exclusively in the field of education. And, obviously, the uneven quality of America’s public schools is an important topic. But it’s only one aspect of the broader situation. Public transit is another. In DC, the Metro stops running at midnight on weekdays and bus service that late tends to be extremely sporadic. So when I’m out after midnight and want to go home, I’ll often hail a cab. That’s not the most expensive thing in the world, but it’s a good deal more expensive than a Metro fare. I can afford it easily enough, but many people can’t. A higher level of tax subsidy to WMATA in order to finance later Metro hours or more frequent bus service would be, in effect, an egalitarian measure.
26 Responses to “Public Services and Equality”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
DOLLAR RALLIES EURO
The U.S. dollar touched a one-month high against the euro Friday after comments from European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet left investors uncertain about the bank’s future policy path.
The dollar was also boosted by a slight rise in risk aversion despite a smaller-than-expected loss from Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) as investors reassessed the sustainability of the recent spate of more upbeat results.
The ECB’s Trichet, who is to unveil the bank’s plans for unconventional policy steps next month, gave no details of these measures in a speech in Tokyo, saying he did not want to create expectations.
Concerns over a split in the ECB’s governing council and uncertainty over the central bank’s next move on interest rates and non-standard measures have weighed heavily on the euro in recent sessions.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
This is why there are “tea parties”. It is the cavalier way some people, want to have other people, pay their way. This is true greed.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Now that’s some serious Mixner bait.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
A lot fewer 8-9 figure salaries would be possible in that more equal world. People who lived in safe neighborhoods with great schools and convenient public transport could live meaningful, productive lives without owning houses, cars and the debt required to finance them.
Wall Street would be small enough to drown in the bathtub.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Isn’t this what Mickey Kaus has been saying for, like, decades? Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
April 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
This is why there are “tea parties”. It is the cavalier way some people, want to have other people, pay their way. This is true greed.
Right. Well, let’s not look at all the ways in which middle class lifestyles are subsidized by tax breaks (mortgage interest deduction), monetary policy (cheap credit), transportation policy (skewed in favor of highways and road building) and high-quality suburban public education.
Go to those tea parties and point out all the ways that government subsidies enrich protesters lives and the conversation becomes not how bad government is, but how those particular subsidies are a vital part of America.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Now this is the model we should be striving for.
There should be no limit, especially not one set by government, on what financial rewards an individual can reap for their work. If you’re JK Rowling and you make a billion dollars by writing stupid children’s books, then good for you. If you’re a baseball player and a team owner thinks you’re worth $20 million a year, good for you. If you are a banker or trader and your employer thinks you’re worth $20 million a year to retain, good for you.
But we should ensure that everybody has the opportunities to do these things with their life and that an adequate safety net exists such that people aren’t actually going hungry.
This is why I’m a Democrat but the recent populist uproar makes me sick to my stomach.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The difference between the ‘less safe’ part of town and the ‘more safe’ is dramatically different than it was two to three decades ago – making DC (and other central urban cores) livable again. Half of violent crime is perpetrated by folks who are acquainted with the victim anyway. In any event, this is the easier problem to solve (or at least ‘equalize’) – and there’s no doubt been external factors that have also reduced the crime rate over the last two decades.
Otoh, the difference between schools in the ‘good’ part of town (really the metro area) and the bad part is as dramatic as it ever was, and more money cannot be the only answer.
A higher level of tax subsidy to WMATA in order to finance later Metro hours or more frequent bus service would be, in effect, an egalitarian measure.
Working class night shift workers rarely have hours where they have to commute between midnight and 5 am. If they do, they have developed a plan to get too and from work that doesn’t involve cabs.
It’s perfectly Ok to want increased late night transportation alternatives to help out purveyors and consumers of the night life. But don’t pretend it’s for ‘the people’. Even in New York, if you want to take the train back to queens after midnight, you’re looking at an hour between trains. And in Tokyo, train nirvana, they shut down a midnight *every day*. (at least the one back to Yokohama/Yokosuka). (btw *that’s* an expensive cab ride)
April 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Oh brother. The challenge facing poorer people these days is obesity. The safety net is already large and comprehensive. What Yglesias wants is perfect security in an uncertain world. Good luck with that.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
The safety net is already large and comprehensive.
Yeah, right, pooter.
By “comprehensive”, you’re thinking of “bankruptcy court”, right? Or “the poledancing club is hiring?” Or “I’m okay, so fuck you?”
April 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
The recession is going to test the notion that urban neighborhoods have become safer as they’ve gentrified. There are widespread predictions, and enough anecdotal evidence to be worrisome, that street crimes — muggings, beatings, auto break-ins and vandalism — have increased as the economy has soured. And the “urban” crime profile now extends into middle- and lower middle-class suburbs.
Safety, as most people define it, may be more a factor of a neighborhood’s affluence than its physical location, also of the concentration of likely victim groups, such as coeds and older people.
In the worst of the ’80s and early ’90s violent-crime wave, your chances of getting shot, raped or mugged declined precipitously if you avoided the drug culture. Is that still the case, or does your vulnerability to crime now depend on how inviting a target you are and where you can afford to live?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Matt,
As you know, Mickey Kaus has been saying this for two decades. The logic of this has led him into actively opposing illegal immigration. After all, when you find yourself in a whole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
Are you brave enough to follow your own logic?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I wonder what they teach at the Dalton School and Harvard that would make their students believe that the government could ever produce the same level of service. Does anyone really believe that upper middle class whites would ever put their children in public day care, that the upper classes in DC, NYC, Chicago, LA would ever send their children to public schools. That the upper classes above the age of thirty would ever commute on public transportation?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
> The recession is going to test the notion that urban
> neighborhoods have become safer as they’ve gentrified.
> There are widespread predictions, and enough anecdotal
> evidence to be worrisome, that street crimes — muggings,
> beatings, auto break-ins and vandalism — have increased as
> the economy has soured. And the “urban” crime profile now
> extends into middle- and lower middle-class suburbs.
>
> Safety, as most people define it, may be more a factor of a
> neighborhood’s affluence than its physical location, also
> of the concentration of likely victim groups, such as coeds
> and older people.
Which would make middling-affluent suburbs – wealthy enough to have lots of valuables and easy prey in isolated mostly-empty houses and neighborhoods, not wealthy enough to buy heavy-muscle private security – perfect targets. Much easier to loot and sack than those inconvenient city neighborhoods with lots of people around and a comparatively high density of police.
Cranky
April 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I agree with you MR Yglesias this is not realized enough although it should be very obvious . Look at the abandoned houses in detroit that can’t sell for one dollar, or my hometown of baltimore which is full of abandoned houses in parts of East and West Baltimore, AND $400,000 houses in Federal Hill and Canton . I have been in many of the abandoned ones{i work in construction}. and most of these are either livable, or need a little inexpensive work. Some are more beautiful than the “nice” houses in Federal Hill or Canton neighborhoods.But they are in crime ridden neighborhoods.This is why many people bought houses that they could not afford ,because they bought the $300,000 house in a safe neighborhood instead of the $50,000 house that is just as nice and may be larger but is in an unsafe neighborhood.[these are real figures i am not just making them up]. My point is that there is plenty of cheap houseing in America and the”houseing shortage” you heard about a few years back was a myth. What there is , is a shortage of houses that aren’t in crime ridden neighborhoods where there are no jobs.If there was little, or no crime in Detroit and there were jobs there ,especialy good paying blue collar jobs, then plenty of low income working class people could afford to buy a house there and would do so .In Baltimore, catholic school [$3000 to $5000 a year] is refered to as “the hidden tax” because many people don’t want to send their kids to public schools but can’t afford private ones.This is not snobbery .there is much violence in our schools in Baltimore. there are many hidden costs of crime.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
By the way ,the government can not do it all.Eglitarian services are all good and well ,but people stlll need to do their part.We just had a neighborhood cleanup today in baltimore today and in Highlandtown only a fraction of the people showed up, but there were enough of us to clean up our alleys and our streets.You only need a few people to to accomplish something. I hear many people ranting online and at bars about the world,but if you want to be productive and actually accomplish something, instead of being self rightious or being a helpless victim, then may i suggest you volunteer at Habitat for Humanity or some other organization. Or show up at a neighborhood clean up.Or do your own personal cleanup.All you need is a broom ,a shovel and a trash can.skip the gym that day and get your exercise the old fashion way.Or use your time being unemployed [as unfortunatly many of us are] fixing up your neighborhood. I know many people do this allready and thank you to those who do,but we need more.we are one country and we will rise together or fall together.the government can and should do what it can but eventually it will come down to us the citizens.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I was under the impression that the rich actually consume significantly more public services per capita than the poor.
For example, the rich use expensive public airports and public marinas for their private boats and airplanes. Not to mention the advantage they accrue from having safe waterways and airspace. In other words, the rich extract more value from public goods because they have more access.
There are probably other less obvious examples, but I think we are possessed by this fallacious imagery of the poor consuming public services via welfare and food stamps, which are actually quite cheap compared to the services that the rich demand.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Patrick, The rich pay for everything they get, plus a large amount of what everyone else gets.
There are no free airports or marinas, everything is paid for by the user. Safe waterways, and airspace benefit everyone, for which the rich pay via taxes. In fact, anything paid for with Federal tax, is largely paid for by the top quintile of earners. After all they pay most of the Federal tax. Some 70% in fact.
So, rather than revile the rich you should write them a nice letter of thanks. They have made your life much nicer.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Public daycare? What planet is this person living on?
Upper classes over the age of thirty would commute on public transportation? — um, how do you define upper classes?
I hate to break it to you, but “upper classes” don’t live in the suburbs. In NYC, they take public transportation or walk. Only a maniac would drive to work in Manhattan. Mayor Bloomberg takes the subway to work.
April 19th, 2009 at 3:07 am
rather than revile the rich you should write them a nice letter of thanks. They have made your life much nicer.
Keep begging for scraps from the table, shoots. You might be lucky this time. There’s a good dog!
April 19th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Harold,
Ever hear o a car service? And if anyone has a parking space in urban areas, it is the rich.
April 19th, 2009 at 6:00 am
I wish that people wouldn’t use the blog comment section for deliberate and unrelated to the topic propaganda like #1. This is the second one I’ve seen in a while. The prior one was Zionist.
April 19th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Perhaps I should say “I think that people shouldn’t” rather than “I wish that people wouldn’t”.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
To make a blog topic request:
If we use the CIA’s Gini Index numbers (with Denmark’s 24 the most egalitarian and Sierre Leone’s 63 the least egalitarian), the United State comes in at 45. This puts us between Russia (41) and Mexico (46.1). Meanwhile, France and Germany are both 28, the UK is 34 and most relevantly, Canada is 32.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
We’ll never be Denmark, but surely we can aspire for a growing economy that is as egalitarian as Canada. My question is, other than the obvious difference in health care coverage, what is Canada’s secret sauce?
Does Canada provide other public services (e.g. universal day care, mandated leave time and/or pensions, greater mass transit or college aid) that the US lacks? Is their tax code more progressive? Does Sailer have a point that immigration policy is a big factor in US inequality (Canada has a large number of immigrants too, but it selects the immigrants itwant while our illegal immigrant population selected itself)? Or is there some other factor that I’ve missed?
April 19th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“My question is, other than the obvious difference in health care coverage, what is Canada’s secret sauce?”
Hmmhmmhm … That’s a tough one. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the U.S. being about 28% black or Latino while Canada is about 3% black or Latino. Absolutely not! So, I think it must be hockey. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan liked to point out, places in the U.S. near the Canadian border, like Minnesota or Montana, have fewer of the typical American social problems. So, yeah, it’s definitely hockey.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
DOLLAR RALLIES EURO
The U.S. dollar touched a one-month high against the euro Friday after comments from European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet left investors uncertain about the bank’s future policy path.
Actually, little changed on Friday, the Euro went from $1.32 to $1.29. And “one month high” is due to a carefully chosen time period, as you can see here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EURUSD=X&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
The original post (#1) was deceptive.