Home > Uncategorized > Understanding income: You can’t get there from here

Understanding income: You can’t get there from here

from Blair Fix

You can’t get the right answer when you ask the wrong question.

This truism, I’ve come to believe, explains much of what is wrong with economics. When it comes to studying income, economists ask the wrong question. Economists, I argue, have mostly asked: is income fair? The problem is that this is a moral question, not a scientific one. It has no scientific answer.

When the wrong questions get entrenched

You can’t get the right answer when you ask the wrong question. This principle seems trivial. Of course you need to ask the right question! The problem, though, is that when you do science it’s rarely obvious which question is right. Compounding this problem is the fact that scientists are, well, human.

Once we (scientists) pose a question, we get engrossed with answering it. The problem is that it’s not easy to answer a question while simultaneously being skeptical of it. It’s like adding two numbers while you think about multiplying them instead. It’s an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

Here’s how you can make this exercise even more difficult. Join a group in which everyone else asks the same question. This, in a nutshell, is what it means to belong to a scientific discipline. A discipline is a group of people who agree on the questions they’re asking. Particle physicists, for example, agree to ask “what are the fundamental constituents of matter?” Evolutionary biologists agree to ask “what are the determinants of evolution?” Economists, I’ll argue, agree to ask “is income fair?”

When you join a discipline, you get indoctrinated in its central questions. If you absorb these questions readily, it’s easy to join the discipline. But if you contest these questions, it’s much harder to join the group. You risk being labelled a ‘crank’.

So although it may seem easy (especially in hindsight) to know when you’ve asked the wrong question, it’s actually not. There’s a strong social pressure to ask the same questions as everyone else in your discipline. That’s how the wrong questions get entrenched.

You can’t get there from here

Back to economics. In his book The Neighborhood Project, biologist David Sloan Wilson recounts his horror as he learned more about mainstream economics:

The more I learned about economics, the more I discovered a landscape that is surpassingly strange. Like the land of Mordor depicted by J.R.R. Tolkien and portrayed so vividly in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films, it is dominated by a single theoretical edifice that arose like a volcano early in the twentieth century and still dominates the landscape. The edifice is based on a conception of human nature that is profoundly false, defying the dictates of common sense, before we even get to the more refined dictates of psychology and evolutionary theory. Yet efforts to move the theory in the direction of common sense are stubbornly resisted.

… Neoclassical economics provides an outstanding example of the “you can’t get there from here” principle in academic cultural evolution. It will never move if we try to change it incrementally. It must be replaced wholesale with a more realistic conception of human nature.

(David Sloan Wilson, emphasis added)

I love Wilson’s principle: you can’t get there from here. It nicely summarizes how scientists get themselves into dead ends. With Wilson’s principle in mind, let’s dive into how economists study income.

When it comes to understanding income, neoclassical and Marxist theorists have both gone down a dead end. And they’ve done so, I believe, because they’ve asked the wrong question. Both schools of thought have asked: is income fair?

The neoclassical appeal to reciprocity

Neoclassical theory proposes that in a competitive economy, each person earns income in proportion to what they produce. Here’s how the principle architect of the theory, John Bates Clark, described his work:

It is the purpose of this work to show that the distribution of the income of society is controlled by a natural law, and that this law, if it worked without friction, would give to every agent of production the amount of wealth which that agent creates. (John Bates Clark in The Distribution of Wealth)

On the face of it, Clark appears to ask the following question: why do some people earn more than others? His answer: because some people are more productive.

I argue, however, that this isn’t Clark’s question. The problem is that Clark doesn’t really explain why some people earn more than others. Instead, he passes the buck. If income is proportional to productivity, then the question of income is transposed onto productivity.

It’s like if you asked — what makes people have different height? I answer: “Height is equal to skeletal length”. You respond: “Thanks Sherlock, but what explains skeletal length?” In the same way, Clark’s explanation of income just shifts the ball to productivity. But what explains differences in productivity?

Here economists offer only hand waving. Search the literature for a list of mechanisms that determine productivity. You won’t find them. Instead, you’ll find hand-waving arguments about ‘human capital’ — a concept so vague that economists agree on little else except that it ‘increases productivity’.

This lack of interest in actually measuring and understanding differences in productivity is revealing. It shows that Clark (and the neoclassical economists who followed him) weren’t interested in explaining why some people earn more than others. Instead, they were responding to a different question: is income fair?

Their answer was a definitive yes.

The genius of Clark’s theory lies in its appeal to reciprocity. All societies expect individuals to contribute to the group. But in pre-capitalist societies, what you contributed to the group (and what you received in return) wasn’t explicitly quantified. But in capitalism, this changed. Suddenly what you received from the group (your income) had an exact quantity. Clark’s genius was to ‘prove’ that what you received was exactly proportional to your contribution to society. So all is fair in capitalism.

Marx’s appeal to reciprocity

Like neoclassical theory, Marx’s theory of capitalism seems to answer the following question: why do some people earn more than others?

Marx responds by observing that capitalist societies have two classes: capitalists and workers. Workers, Marx argues, are the sole source of value. But because capitalists own the means of production, they are able to steal part of what workers produce. That’s how they earn a profit.

As with Clark, it seems like Marx explained why people earn what they do. But similarly to Clark, Marx’s explanation mostly passes the buck.

If capitalists earn their income by exploiting workers, then the size of this income hinges both on the rate of exploitation and on the productivity of workers. Like neoclassical economists, Marxists have spent almost no time investigating what makes workers more productive. And while they have thought a lot about the rate of exploitation, Marxists have never developed a way to measure it independently of income. At best, they offer hand-waving arguments that the rate of exploitation is determined by ‘class struggle’.

If Marx (and his followers) were seriously trying to explain why people earn what they do, then this hand waving makes no sense. But it makes perfect sense if Marx was actually answering a different question: is income fair?

Marx’s answer was a definite no

As with Clark, Marx’s genius was to appeal to reciprocity. Marx ‘proved’ that workers do not receive back from society what they put in. Capitalists take an unearned cut from workers’ contribution. So all is not fair in capitalism.

An unanswerable question

Marxists and neoclassical economists have erred by asking ‘is income fair’? This question has no scientific answer.

The problem is that fairness is fundamentally a moral issue. We want our interactions with other humans to feel reciprocal. I emphasize the word ‘feel’ here because reciprocity has nothing to do with an underlying equivalence. It is a feeling and nothing more.

Take the simplest type of reciprocity — an exchange of services. Suppose I fix your car. In return, you cut my hair. Is this reciprocal?

It is if we both believe it is. Nothing underlies reciprocity except a belief that it occurred.

Marxists and neoclassical economists err by looking for something quantitative under this belief. Marx argued that an exchange is reciprocal if the same amount of labor time is involved. But this is a moral proposition, not a scientific hypothesis. Neoclassical economists, in contrast, argue that an exchange is reciprocal if both people derive the same utility from it. But this just adds (meaningless) quantitative lanquage to our simple truism. An exchange is reciprocal if two people believe it is reciprocal.

Here’s the crux of the matter. “Is an exchange reciprocal?” is the wrong question. Instead, we should ask: “why do people believe that an exchange is reciprocal? The same thing goes for income. “Is income fair?” is the wrong question. We need to ask: “why do people believe that income is fair?”

When we ask this new question, it becomes clear that to explain income, we have to understand beliefs. More than that, we have to understand how the beliefs of one person relate to the beliefs of others, and how this plays out when they divide the resource pie.

Here’s an example. Suppose Bob is a low-ranking worker in a large company. His direct superior is Alice. In which scenario is Bob more likely to receive a raise?

  1. Bob thinks he’s underpaid, but Alice does not.
  2. Alice thinks that Bob is underpaid, but Bob does not.

It’s obvious that Bob is more likely to get a raise in scenario 2. That’s because as Bob’s superior, Alice’s beliefs outweigh his. Put bluntly, Alice has power over Bob. So when it comes to income, beliefs mix with power. Power determines the extent that someone can impose their beliefs on others.

It gets even more complicated when we realize that power itself rests on beliefs. Hierarchies work because subordinates believe that superiors have the right to command them. (If subordinates don’t believe this, they must at least choose not to act on their insubordinate ideas.)

Beliefs all the way down

A theory of income distribution, then, is fundamentally about beliefs. It asks why people believe that income is (or is not) fair. And it asks how people are able (or not able) to act on these beliefs.

When posed this way, we can see why neoclassical and Marxist theories of income distribution are scientific dead ends. They’re in the business of shaping our beliefs, not explaining them! Neoclassical economics tells us to believe that income is fair. Marxism tells us to believe that income is unfair.

Neither has anything to do with the truth, which is this: when it comes to income, it’s beliefs all the way down.

  1. Craig
    February 10, 2020 at 7:06 pm

    Precisely why wisdom, which is both ethics and science, is the necessary discipline economists need to adopt.

    Science like food is delicious, interesting, multi-faceted and necessary, and it resides entirely within the digestive tract of wisdom. Craig

  2. Ikonoclast
    February 10, 2020 at 10:34 pm

    I would like to start with a plug.

    The CasP (Capital as Power) works of Nitzan, Bichler, Fix and Martin * are enough to debunk the myth that money measures value (utils) or labor (SNALTs as “Socially Necessary Abstract Labor Time”). When the myth that money measures value collapses than all classical and neoclassical economics are seen to collapse with it; at least in any guise that is a pretense to descriptive (positive) economics.

    What follow below is my own take on matters. Then I post some links to (CasP).

    What remains is the clear reality that all conventional economics is prescriptive economics.The form(s) of money is (are) prescribed. The forms of markets are prescribed. The forms of ownership and the transformations between so-called nominal / fictional capital and real capital are all prescribed. They are all rules-based. Finally, it is no surprise that changing formal rules leads to new behaviors and new relationships in the real world.

    Human agents at one level are programmable agents (not just rational agents); albeit operating with fuzzy logic and at times with resistance, contrariness and creative or destructive rule-breaking behavior (gaming the system, criminality and so on). If it is a rule to drive on the left hand side of the road, most will drive on the left hand side of the road. If it is a rule to drive on the right hand side of the road, most will drive on the right hand side of the road. What enforces conformity? Apprehension and arrest certainly enforce conformity. Also, the high probability of accident, injury and even death enforce conformity.

    The rule is formal and arbitrary. The legal controls are formal but backed by real force (arrest), theoretically arbitrary in detail and extent extent but necessarily consistent in basic logical form or else disorder (anarchy) would result. The ultimate real controls on non-conformist behavior on the road are real, head-on collisions.

    The same applies to money and property. The rules are formal and arbitrary. The legal controls are formal but backed by real force as confiscation, arrest and/or detention. These socially instituted real controls on non-conformist behavior have real outcomes. You don’t live above immiseration level unless you “earn” money or goods or “steal” money or goods, with the terms “earn” and “steal” extensively defined by law and regulation.

    In addition, formal rules, if followed by programmable real human agents (people in other words) can have real outcomes in real physical systems. The formal rules of our economy ensure endless economic growth, while this is still physically and ecologically possible, and endless destruction of ecology and biosphere, but only while enough resources can be appropriated and enough wastes dumped without significant negative feedback to enable the economic creation / environmental destruction machine to continue.

    It is finally a matter of what we consider “sacrosanct” or at least what we consider will allow indefinite continuance of human life and civilization. Are the current formal rules of money and property to remain sacrosanct or are life-supporting ecologies to be considered sacrosanct? The answer is very simple. Either money and property in their current form die or we die… en masse. The radical detail of a new system to replace the current money and property system is not clear and simple. Processes of emergence of novelty and human-system evolution will have to occur. Whether these will be led by or will lead radical politics is also unclear. I rather suspect radical politics will follow the leads of emerging reality. Radical politics will still matter. If we don’t follow the right leads we are still all dead.

    * Links

    “Capital as Power” – Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler.

    Click to access 20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf

    Click to access 20190100_fix_the_aggregation_problem_bpearq_preprint.pdf

    Click to access 20190500_martin_the_autocatalytic_sprawl_of_pseudorational_mastery_recasp.pdf

  3. February 12, 2020 at 2:21 pm

    Accepting the risk of being called a “crank”, I disagree with what Blair Fix is saying both about morality, science and economic non-science, for reasons partly captured by Iconoclast:

    > “Human agents at one level are programmable agents (not just rational agents); … The ultimate real controls on non-conformist behavior on the road are real, head-on collisions”.

    Blair says “The problem is that fairness is fundamentally a moral issue. … It is a feeling and nothing more”. Rubbish! He has swallowed a fish hooked on Hume’s idealist philosophy of scientific statistical empiricism without giving enough thought to the waters Hume had been fishing in. I won’t say “no thought” because he has got half-way to the truth before making his move to Humean “non-scientific” morality:

    >”The genius of Clark’s theory lies in its appeal to reciprocity. All societies expect individuals to contribute to the group. But in pre-capitalist societies, what you contributed to the group (and what you received in return) wasn’t explicitly quantified. But in capitalism, this changed. Suddenly what you received from the group (your income) had an exact quantity. … Marxists have never developed a way to measure it independently of income”.

    The scientific moral has to be, if something is not measurable, don’t measure it – but don’t rely instead – as Hume advised – on mere feelings. But Hume’s advice is not scientific, so why not look at the practice in pre-Capitalist – i.e. pre-Humean – societies? Or at Marx’s favourite aphorism (cribbed from Christian teaching): “To each according to his needs; from each according to his capabilities”.

    But let us get back to pre-Humean morality, too. There are two different words – ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ because there are two different meanings: the one about what you should not do in specific cases, the other what one should always do. The Mosaic Law, e.g. don’t worship false gods, and Christ’s “new law” (in the context of a Father god who had saved Moses’ folk from slavery and fed them manna in the desert) : “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart … and you must love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets too” (Mt 22:36-40). There is a nice blessing on cranks and curse on economists in the longer version at Luke 6:16-38.

    Having denied the God, Hume reduced morality to mores: the taboos of a society reflecting its traditions and the whims of its masters. I say again, “Rubbish!”, and with Iconoclast, that the ultimate controls on unethical behaviour are head-on collisions with reality – like global warming. Where I got ‘reciprocity’ from was from Good Pope John writing not about monetary ‘incomes’ but about the reciprocity of rights and duties. No need for numbers. In fuzzy logic, ‘enough’ is enough. To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

  4. Ken Zimmerman
    March 1, 2020 at 1:57 pm

    Bravo, well stated.

    The notion of belief is foundational for anthropology. The anthropology of religion is one of the first areas of research in anthropology. And at its heart religion is about belief, without evidence.

    People who do not believe in God (including many anthropologists) look at the many issues of faith and lack of empirical support for religion and conclude that if so many people believe in something for which there is no evidence, something about the belief process must be hardwired (genetically coded) and belief must have arisen because it serves some other, more useful end. Evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists argue that many of the building blocks of our psyche were formed through a slow evolutionary process to adapt us to a dangerous, unpredictable world. When we hear a noise in the next room, we immediately wonder about an intruder even when we know the door is locked. That’s to our advantage: the cost of worrying when no one is there is nothing compared to the cost of not worrying when someone is. As a result, we are primed to be alert for presence, whether anyone is present or not.

    In this context, some come to argue that the reason people believe in supernatural beings is that our evolved intuitions lead us to over-interpret the presence of intentional agents, and those quick, effortless intuitions are so powerful that they become, in effect, our default interpretation of the world. From this perspective, the idea of God arises out of this evolved tendency to attribute intention to an inanimate world. Religious belief would then be an accidental by-product of the way our minds have evolved. That, in a nutshell, is what what most anthropologists, sociologists, historians, etc.argue—concluding that anyone with logical training and a good education should be an atheist.

    In “When God Talks Back,” anthropologist T.M. Luhrmann comes to interesting conclusions based on ethnographic studies of how faith and religion exist in the very pragmatic 21st century. She concludes. “what I saw was that coming to a committed belief in God was more like learning to do something than to think something. I would describe what I saw as a theory of attentional learning—that the way you learn to pay attention determines your experience of God. More precisely, I will argue that people learn specific ways of attending to their minds and their emotions to find evidence of God, and that both what they attend to and how they attend changes their experience of their minds, and that as a result, they begin to experience a real, external, interacting living presence.

    In effect, people train the mind in such a way that they experience part of their mind as the presence of God. They learn to reinterpret the familiar experiences of their own minds and bodies as not being their own at all—but God’s. They learn to identify some thoughts as God’s voice, some images as God’s suggestions, some sensations as God’s touch or the response to his nearness. They construct God’s interactions out of these personal mental events, mapping the abstract concept “God” out of their mental awareness into a being they imagine and reimagine in ways shaped by the Bible and encouraged by their church community. They learn to shift the way they scan their worlds, always searching for a mark of God’s presence, chastening the unruly mind if it stubbornly insists that there is nothing there. Then they turn around and allow this sense of God—an external being they find internally in their minds—to discipline their thoughts and emotions. They allow the God they learn to experience in their minds to persuade them that an external God looks after them and loves them unconditionally.”

    I suggest this same process operates in every community–religious, scientific, political, academic, etc. Might be a useful and revealing way to consider many of the ways of life that irritate people on this blog, e.g., neoliberalism, neoclassical economics.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: