Labor Day And The One Percent

No. No. You misunderstand. But I'll get to that.

First of all, happy Labor Day. Unofficially it's the end of summer, but we know better. Lots of hot days left. And Election Day's coming, so it's “Silly Season.” (But it's always Silly Season.) It was especially so during the run-up to the Democratic Convention when Senator Sanders's supporters outnumbered those of Colonel Sanders, and his ideas were “finger lickin' good.”

But I'll get to that too.

First let me comment on the “one percent.” It's a what, not a who. According to Thomas Edison, Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. It's not the idea that counts, it's the effort that goes into turning it into a usable “product,” whether that's a concept or a physical construction, whether it's commercial or simply for personal use.

The perspiration is certainly something any worker experiences, though not all workers share equally in that experience. There are many who “play the system,” making enough to get by while working just hard enough to keep their jobs. Or at least being seen to do so. Better still, with enough effort spent in doing so, work can be avoided entirely, with support provided by various unemployment and welfare programs. It certainly isn't the life of Riley, but it's far better than the life endured by so many around the world.

And the United States isn't the only generous country. There are many that provide for the needy. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and someone has to pay. Can you guess who? You. And me. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Louis Blanc, 1851. Later Karl Marx.) Socialism. That's the perspective of many, as exemplified in the “Occupy ...” movements a few years ago. And even if the movements no longer exist, the idea remains.

The “one percent” of whom they speak are the rich. But they are not the lazy. In addition to the perspiration, they have the inspiration. And much of their perspiration, their ninety-nine percent, is the effort to turn their ideas into usable products. (That's not to say that all the wealthy are good people with good ideas, but at some point in the history of each fortune is the effort, imagination, and hard work that created it.)

Inspiration is not present equally in everybody. Nor are capital, knowledge, and opportunity. But, if society is to advance it should be encouraged, not punished. By and large it benefits society, not only with both its products and employment for those who participate in its manufacture, but because the inspired one percent are the source of so much of society's philanthropy (see “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks, “Why Philanthropy Matters” by Zoltan Acs, and other similar works) – and we all profit from that.

And, for better or worse, we're all selfish. We all want a peice of the pie. Of course we'd prefer not to work for it, but the greater rewards come to those who put greater effort into problem solving. If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods. (Ralph Waldo Emerson. Now usually quoted as Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.) Society rewards imagination and innovation. As it should. If we are to advance we have to encourage our citizens to come up with and develop new ideas. And the best encouragement is fiscal. That's fair.

There are many, however, who adocate sharing. Usually they want what someone else has. They would have the rich provide for the poor. No one should benefit at another's expense. From their perspective that is what's fair. The Robin Hood approach. Irrespective of its effects on motivation and progress. Among those who take this position are politicians, like Senator Sanders who was recently a candidate for President. And his voice has had its effects on the Democratic platform. But popular as such a concept may be among the majority, it may not be for the good.

The following letter appeard recently in The Wall Street Journal:

Regarding Bret Stephens’s “What's Socialism Dad?” (Global View, May 17): I had a similar discussion with my grandchildren as did Bret Stephens with his son regarding the meaning of socialism. I pointed out to them that they all work very hard to achieve the grade of “A” on their tests. However, the student next to them may not have worked as hard, or may have goofed off, or just didn’t care, and as a result received a failing grade. But under socialism, the school administration (i.e., the “government”) could reduce your hard-earned “A” to a “C” to lift the failing student’s “F” to a “C.” They all immediately responded as I hoped they would, saying: “Not fair,” and “Why would I work so hard again?” They understood immediately the disincentives and the mediocrity of socialism

Steven Shanok

Northbrook, Ill.

I hope even the politicians – especially Senator Sanders – can understand its message. But I doubt that they want to.