Inequality does not mean poverty and unequal does not mean unjust

See Go for the Gold! by Alex Tabarrok.

"Bob Lawson and I have an op-ed in Barrons with a new perspective on inequality. Kamala Harris has said inequality is “the defining economic challenge of our time.” Indeed, the Gini coefficient for the United States is 0.4, one of the highest among developed nations, and Senator Bernie Sanders says US inequality is “obscene.” But consider another economy:

In this economy, the Gini coefficient is a whopping 0.60—much higher than in the United States or just about any country in the world. Living in this economy must be miserable, right? Well, what if we told you that the average wage in this economy was around $3 million, the median wage close to $1 million, and the poorest 1% earned nearly $800,000 a year?

The economy we are talking about is the NFL. Is comparing inequality within countries to inequality within a sports league an unfair or irrelevant comparison? We don’t think so. NFL inequality can teach us a lot about what inequality statistics mean.

First, inequality does not mean poverty. The average income in the NFL is well above the U.S. average income. Even the poorest 1% do well. Is that a special case? Not at all. The average income in the United States is well above the world average income. And while our poorest 1% don’t have it easy, their situation looks far better when compared to most people in the developing world.

Second, unequal does not mean unjust. Salaries in the NFL are set by competitive market forces. Jared Goff (Detroit Lions) at the top of the NFL roster earns a lot more than Cameron Sutton (Pittsburgh Steelers), who earns the veteran minimum. But Goff didn’t steal his position from Sutton. Nor do Goff’s riches come from Sutton’s penury. Goff doesn’t earn more because Sutton earns less. Goff earns more because he produces more.

[Some people warn that inequality leads to envy, resentment, societal dysfunction and even collapse. But] Steph Curry’s salary dwarfs those of most of his teammates on the Golden State Warriors. Yet, do we see resentment manifesting on the court? Do Steph Curry’s lesser-paid colleagues refuse to pass him the ball or secretly hope for his downfall? On the contrary, Curry’s teammates rally around him. They recognize that his success elevates their chances of winning championships, enhances their visibility, and potentially increases their own market value.

 The dynamics throughout our entire society are certainly more complex, but the sports analogy illustrates a crucial point: When inequality is perceived as a result of merit, effort, and value creation—rather than exploitation or unfair advantage—it fosters collaboration instead of resentment.

 In such an environment, people see high earners as role models and partners in success, not adversaries. In the same way, if inequality in the United States is seen as a result of merit, effort and value creation it can help the U.S. team cooperate against rivals in the rest of the world. Go Curry! Go Team USA!

[Sports inequality helps us to understand inequality more generally.] The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate inequality, but to ensure it reflects real value creation in a system with ample opportunity and dignity for all. That is best achieved through competitive markets. Do that, and inequality transforms from a divisive force into a driver of progress.

In short: Don’t fear inequality. Fear unfairness. Build a just system, and let the scoreboard reflect the game."