Not zero sum
President Obama and other Democrat politicians want us to believe income inequality or the “wealth gap” is a national scandal. Income equality is not the proper measure of how fair is our society because the economy is always growing and, therefore, those on the top have far more wealth than ever before. However, the real indicators of our charitable spirit are how well the poorest among us are doing and how socially mobile is our society.
In an exhaustive study of poverty in America, researcher Robert Rector pointed out that the overwhelming majority of those defined as poor have air conditioning, cable TV, microwaves and other amenities, are well housed, have an adequate food supply and have access to medical care. A hundred years ago, even the rich didn't have some of the things that the poor have today.
Social mobility in America also demonstrates how easy it is to get ahead. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were not born wealthy but were able to achieve incredible wealth through their accomplishments. Thousands of industrial leaders, scientists, athletes and entertainers who were not born rich have accumulated great wealth from their achievements.
Our free-market economy is not zero sum. No one in America is poor because someone else is wealthy.
The writer was the Republican candidate for the District 8 Allegheny County Council seat in the Nov. 5 election.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pa.’s ‘safety laws’
- Arnold must cut police force
- Why the difference?
- Right to veto
- No ‘pass’ for Obama
- PETA & its tactics II
- PETA & its tactics I
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- Today’s technology
- Petition to save monuments
- Buffer zones needed II