Coercively redistributing resources is more satisfying to the clerisy than actually improving lives

From The Happiness Lottery by Rob Henderson.  

The idea that material circumstances are the primary determinant of our subjective emotional states and the organization of our social lives is a weirdo Marxian theory. But it somehow became the conventional wisdom among educated people.

Some people argue that the redistribution of economic resources mitigates the unfair distribution of genetic endowments. You or I might be smarter, or taller, or more attractive than average. And these traits are economically lucrative. But we didn’t earn those traits (and the associated financial benefits), so, the logic goes, we should share our money with those who aren’t as fortunate as us.  

 

But this hinges on the belief that economic resources are the main causal factor for happiness.

 

As I pointed out in the above findings, our relationships are at least as important to life satisfaction as money. Yet our elites are reluctant to promote marriage, friendship, social bonds, neighborliness, etc. The non-material factors that give rise to a rich and fulfilling life.

 

Somehow we’ve become reluctant to publicly endorse any sort of value that lies outside of economics. Governments are paying people to take vaccines. Cities are paying residents not to shoot people.

 

Leaders have become reluctant to appeal to higher ideals or principles. The belief seems to be that all that matters is economic incentives.

 

In a 2019 New York Times op-ed, two Nobel laureates share research findings indicating that people overestimate the strength of economic incentives. The authors report that “status, dignity, social connections” are more powerful drivers of behavior.

 

So why the focus on economic redistribution? Many reasons, some noble.

 

But one is that promoting friendship and marriage doesn’t hurt one’s enemies. Malicious envy is the strongest predictor of support for coercive redistribution. Rich people want to hurt people richer than themselves.

 

If the richest 90-99th percentile of people discovered that marriage among the poor would inflict pain on the richest 1 percent, then that 9 percent would be matrimony’s strongest supporters.

 

Anyway, you and I might know something about what it means to live a satisfying life. But we didn’t “earn” whatever traits we have that led us to this understanding (and the associated happiness). So, the logic goes, we should share our knowledge with those less fortunate than ourselves.

 

We can give money to people to help them out. But we can also promote wise choices and strong norms to help them out.

The fortunate among us can share our wealth, sure. But we might also share our values—steps we have taken to live fulfilling lives. 

The reluctance of those with socioeconomic status to share and reinforce the social norms they practice and which underpin their socioeconomic success is one of the major findings in Coming Apart by Charles Murray.  

The clerisy are far more enamored with coercively redistributing other people's resources, regardless of the ineffectiveness of that redistribution, than they are with actually helping people foster the goals, objectives, behaviors, values and habits which actually and demonstrably create the desirable socioeconomic outcomes which are being used as a measure of success.