The problem with all of this talk about income inequality—aside from the fact that it’s a smokescreen thrown up to divert attention from the failings of Obamacare—is that it’s founded on invalid assumptions.  With income inequality, we are not talking primarily about inherited wealth.  Rather, we are talking about the amount of the world’s wealth that is controlled by the top one percent of wealthy people.  The invalid assumptions that progressives base their income-inequality diatribes on are these: 1) That all work is equally valuable in the marketplace,  2) That those who earn less are somehow being discriminated against, which is why they earn less, and 3) That it is unfair for one individual to earn a lot of money while another earns comparatively little.  All of these assumptions are demonstrably false, and liberals know it.  Of course since stoking the fires of class envy is their goal, it matters not a whit that their assumptions are false, at least not to liberals.

In a free society with a market economy, the people who have the most money will always be those who are able to provide a product or service people want and are willing to pay for.  Consequently, the level of income one earns and the amount of wealth one generates is based primarily on supply and demand.  If an individual enters a profession for which demand is strong and supply is limited, he will earn more than someone who enters a field for which demand is weak and supply is plentiful.  Hence, individuals who work as high-level computer engineers—the kind of professionals employed by Microsoft for example—earn more than individuals who work the counter at a fast-food restaurant.  Is this wrong?  Hardly.  Why is it not wrong?  Because people want computers and the associated devices and software that go with them and they are willing to pay to get them.  Further, to become a computer engineer one must have the innate mental capacity to do the work, the perseverance to complete a rigorous course of college study, and the persistence to keep one skills constantly updated and on the cutting edge of computer technology. These things are not true of people who work the counter at fast-food restaurants.

To work the counter at a fast food restaurant requires little more than the mental capacity, education, and persistence associated with a sixth grader, if that.  Because of the supply-and-demand equation, it is difficult for employers such as Microsoft to find and keep qualified computer engineers.  Hence the market demands that they pay a competitive salary that is enhanced by good benefits and attractive perquisites.  On the other hand, almost any person can quickly learn everything necessary to work at a fast-food restaurant.  Consequently, there is seldom a shortage of individuals seeking employment at fast food restaurants.  In this case, the supply is typically high and demand is typically low.  Consequently, the pay is correspondingly low.  This is not unfair, as progressives try to portray it.  In fact, it is inherently fair.  The market usually is.  What is unfair is when progressive politicians with a hidden agenda try to manipulate public opinion by encouraging class envy.  And, of course, this is precisely what the left is doing with its new campaign for income equality.

While it is true that the hand of God is certainly a factor in determining who is born with the innate ability to become a computer engineer as opposed to a fast-food worker, it is also true that success in the workplace is based on much more than innate ability.  It would be hard to count the number of people with innate ability whose earning potential is limited by such factors as laziness, bad educational choices, sloppy career planning, and a poor work ethic.  Perhaps one might argue that it is inherently unfair that one individual would have the innate ability to become a computer programmer, but that is a conservation to have with God not your local Congressman.