Journalists know that envy sells papers, and people can’t resist a bit of wealth porn (see Super Rich or Super Angry). But publishing doctors’ incomes also serves a deeper purpose. On average, doctors’ billings prove that some workers earn more than others. Physicians’ incomes demonstrate that income disparity exists, and publishing them presupposes the gap warrants discussion. Except for ardent capitalists, salacious CEO incomes give most of us pause. But is income disparity intrinsically bad?
Beyond envy and idle curiosity, income comparisons rest on the belief that all workers should earn a similar wage. Some people think that skilled workers who contribute more to production should be paid more. Marx disagreed. He saw factories automated to increase profits for owners while decreasing wages for labourers. He believed income disparity to be evidence of capitalist corruption, and many still agree with him.
We miss the point when we debate whether incomes are fair. If we accept the idea that wages should be set in comparison to other wages, we presuppose Marx was right. He believed that all work had intrinsic value that should determine wages. Capitalists believe that demand for a product or service should determine income. If a particular skill or service is in high demand, then wages for that skill will be high.
If we agree that all income disparity is inherently bad, we accept a core tenet of socialist ideology. Our country grew strong on democratic capitalism. We did not become prosperous by pursuing socialism.
Prosperity allows us to create some socialized services. But we must not confuse socialized medicine with socialism.
Within socialized medicine, every worker labours for an income, for profit. Highly trained professionals earn more than those with less training and responsibility. Healthcare wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for intimate ties with industry to build, supply and service institutions. Socialized medicine is not the same as statewide socialism.
Income equality stands at the pulpit of socialized medicine to preach socialist ideology. Most people agree with helping those who cannot help themselves. But this does not require socialist economics. Socialism has been tried and failed repeatedly over the last 100 years. It refuses to die. If we accept the belief that all income disparity is bad, we lose the debate about doctors’ incomes before it begins.
Hello Shawn, as usual, I enjoy your insightful articles. I must admit, though, that while I understand most of the principles you describe above, i’m not really sure I get the point you are trying to make here… ?
Hello David! Thanks so much for reading and sharing your question.
I seem to have made this more tricky than needed. Sorry!
I tried to argue that many debates have flawed presuppositions. It’s like trying to answer, “Have you stopped abusing drugs and alcohol?” Or, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” You accept a wheelbarrow load of presuppositions just to start debate.
Marx insisted that all workers provided value. He believed that different incomes grew out of flawed capitalist thinking. Incomes should be the same. On the other hand, democratic capitalism drives people to work harder and produce more to gain greater compensation.
Capitalists see higher incomes as evidence of hard work, sacrifice, persistence and industry. High incomes are generally a good thing. Marx saw income differences as evidence of oppression by powerful elites. He believed that some workers earning more than others was fundamentally wrong.
If we believe doctors work long unsociable hours, make years of sacrifice, and assume life-and-death responsibility, then capitalist thought suggests doctors should earn a very high income. If we are Marxists, we should attack all evidence of income disparity as proof of corruption.
Marxist thinking still persuades many. Especially at certain media outlets, content grows from socialist ideology. We often get pulled into debates about angels dancing on the head of a pin when we should be asking whether the issue is valid at all.
Finally, socialized medicine is different from national socialism. Any attraction to socialized medicine tends to get used to support increasing amount of socialistic thought. We saw this in Justin Trudeau’s recent comments about applying a Medicare approach to the environment. He did not mean a Medicare approach. He meant a socialistic approach. Socialism give government ownership over the means of production but leaves control to individuals. Communism places ownership and control of services/means of production with the government. I’ll let you decide whether you see Medicare as more socialist or communist.
Thanks again for asking your question! Let me know if I’m still unclear.
Best,
Shawn