Today, let's talk about money. Who gets how much, in America, and why? And how do you feel about it? How fair is the distribution of income? And where it's unfair, what would you like done about it? In a capitalist society like ours, a great deal of the question who gets what is supposed to be answered by market forces. Some people object when market forces are not allowed to work efficiently. Some people complain that the market doesn't place the proper values on different people's contributions to society. Do you think people should get whatever the market says they are worth? If the market says someone is worth millions of dollars a year, is that what they should get? If others cannot earn enough --even by working hard-- to support their families above the poverty level, is it OK that that's what they get? Consider the case of doctors and teachers. The average medical doctor in America makes roughly five times as much money as the average schoolteacher. Does that seem appropriate? Many farmers work long hours and barely get by on what the market gives them for their products: should anything be done differently? Take the ratio of the pay given chief executives to that paid average workers. in 1960, the average CEO made 12 times the income of the average worker in his company. Twelve years later, the ratio had climbed to 40. Now he makes 140 times as much. Is that the result of market forces or of other factors? Either way, is it right? Of Americans that work, in 1977 the richest 1% of Americans made half as much income as the total earned by the poorest 40%. By 1990, those at the top had doubled their share of the national income and the top 1% were making as much as the bottom 40%. Why has the gap between rich and poor widened in America --among working families, not even considering the unemployed and those on welfare-- and is it OK? Here's something that confuses me: I've heard some of the same people who argue that the market should be left alone, and that those at the top are worth what they get, express on other occasions great resentment at the money paid professional athletes. Is it right for a player in the NBA, or the NFL, or big league baseball, to be paid millions? And how about the astronomical sums paid to movie stars? Any reason we should object to a gifted athlete getting paid more for a night of playing a single game than a scrubwoman gets for a year's work-- if that's what the market says they're worth? Many Americans these days complain about our jobs being sent overseas, where corporations go to get cheap labor. If a worker in Thailand or Mexico will do a job for $2/day, is there any reason an American worker should get $10/hour to do the same job? When people complain about how the market distributes money, they usually want the other big force in our society --government--to do something about it. What kind of role, if any, should government play in redistributing income? And is it playing the right role now? For some decades now, the federal government has established a minimum wage. Because of the effect of inflation, however, combined with the minimum wage having stayed the same for a while, the real income of someone working at the minimum wage is now about half what it used to be. Is our present Congress right in choosing not to raise it now? Then there is the question of taxes. At one time, it was widely agreed in America that taxation should be progressive, that is that the rich should pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes than the poor. Now, the United States has the least progressive tax structure of any major industrial nation. It does not look as though that will change any time soon. Indeed, we may be heading in the other direction, what with the idea of the flat tax having much support in Congress (this would tax the rich and the poor at the same rate) and with ideas of switching to a national sales tax also current (this would take a larger portion of the income of the poor than of the rich, and thus be regressive). With taxes, government takes money from people; with various kinds of payments and subsidies, government gives money back to people. Who should get it? Twenty-five years ago, it was said that too many senior citizens in America were suffering in poverty. Policies were changed to correct what was seen as neglect of the elderly. Now the federal government spends eleven times as much on the average senior citizen as it does on the average American child. And an American child is now twice as likely to be living below the poverty line as is an elderly American. Is this because children are unorganized and don't vote? Is it right? Money is not only a medium by which goods and services can be obtained. It is also a language by which we express what we value. As we look across the complex economic and social landscape of America today, what does the flow of money in America --the who gets what-- say about us?