"Hocking the Future"

The editorial in the April 10, 2006 issue of America magazine is called "Hocking the Future."  After noting that "the United States has enjoyed an extraordinarily long period of economic growth with very little inflation," the editors express concern that "the beneficiaries of this growth have been principally the very rich.  The gap," the editors contend, "between the very rich and working-class Americans has grown."   The second problem, in the editors view, is that "both consumers and the federal government are hocking their futures to spend for the present."

This excerpt grabbed my attention:

It is now widely taken for granted that to support a middle-class family, both parents must work. While women have every right to equality in the workplace, every family also has a right to a living wage so that one parent can stay home and raise their children if he or she wishes. The high price of housing is a special stumbling block for young workers trying to move into the middle class. It has become very difficult for young families to become homeowners without the help of wealthy parents.

This is not fair. A just economic system extends its benefits to all in society, especially those most in need. If the economy itself does not do that, then the government must intervene to correct the imbalances through tax and spending programs that spread the wealth. This is simple justice consistent with Catholic social teaching.

We can agree, I expect, that -- as a general matter -- markets are not sacrosanct, that property rights are not absolute, that taxation is not theft, and that governments ought to tax-and-spend in a way that provides for the needs and respects the dignity of the vulnerable and least fortunate.  It is a big leap, though, from this tenet of "simple justice consistent with Catholic social teaching" to the very different claim that "imbalances" in wealth and the benefits of a thriving economy may (let alone must) be corrected by government intervention.  Is it really the case -- is it really "simple justice"? -- that government ought to tax-and-spend (i.e., to take money earned lawfully from some and give it to others) in order to correct for the fact that a "middle-class" lifestyle (a lifestyle that is, of course, strikingly like that enjoyed by the "upper" classes in most contexts) is now widely thought to require both parents to work?  The suggestion that "imbalances" are unfair -- and unjust -- seems just wrong.  (To be clear:  I am not taking issue with redistribution that protects the dignity and serves the needs of the poor or with the editors' observation that our economy depends excessively on advertising and status-consciousness-driven consumption).

Also, one wonders if the editors have really thought about the challenges that might attend trying to formulate policy that is consistent with their statements that "women have every right to equality in the workplace", "every family also has a right to a living wage so that one parent can stay home and raise their children if he or she wishes," and "[t]he high price of housing is a special stumbling block for young workers trying to move into the middle class."  One might think, for example (without being a bad Catholic, or indifferent to "simple justice"), that -- absent a norm that only one parent work (a norm that I would not endorse) -- a "living wage" would likely (or, could possibly) increase (or, at least, not decrease) the number of two-working-parent families, thereby increasing the incomes of those families, thereby increasing demand for housing, thereby making housing more expensive for families where only one parent works, etc.