Income equality. Or income gap, if you prefer, the gap between rich and poor, yadda, yadda. Under whatever form you like the term, they all mean basically the same thing: some Americans want incomes more level among the citizenry. But is such a thing even possible?
Why should incomes be within a certain range? Is a plumber actually worth the same money we pay a cancer specialist? A truck driver equal to a secretary? Indeed, is there any true equality among jobs? No? Then why should there be income equity?
Well, we don't mean that, say the supporters of bridging the income gap. We mean raising wages so that people can live better off of lower wage jobs. But why are there lower wage jobs? Why are there people who want them, or can only work them? Aren't those questions beyond the actual scope of whatever job is in question?
Further, don't we want the natural incentives which the chance of higher earnings might offer? That woman who several months ago famously called out the McDonald's CEO; has anyone asked her why she's been at a Mickey D's 9 years and not advanced? Why haven't her two children been a factor in her wanting to improve herself rather than demanding that society acquiesce to her terms? Is she saying that advancement is impossible with a family, even a single mother household? We suspect that even many single mothers would take offense at that.
The bottom line is twofold: is closing the income even remotely possible (without a tyrannical state), and that there are really too many questions involved to determine exactly who's worth what even within industries and professions. Only where a pair of or a small group of workers are involved, all of whom have almost identical qualifications and seniority, could we seriously discuss equal pay for equal work. Yet how often will that be the case?
It is foolish to talk about income equality. We will only waste our time, money, and effort. Oh, we'll surely make people jealous and resentful. That certainly is not a decent use of our human resources.