The Unhealthy Delusion Of The Self Made Man And Woman
By Melvin J. Howard
If someone starts with modest
resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to
attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really. Here is another question
why do some people succeed and others don't? Is it luck? Is it talent? That's
the question Malcolm Gladwell sets himself to in his book Outliers. The answer
he finds is, often, none of these. To make his point, Gladwell compares
Christopher Langan to Robert Oppenheimer.
Langan has an astronomical IQ
of 195 but he has not been able to parlay that into significant academic or
business success. On the other hand is J. Robert Oppenheimer, the theoretical
physicist who headed up the Manhattan Project, America's effort to create an
atomic bomb. Yet here was a man who had to talk his way out of an apparent
murder attempt while at Cambridge in his twenties. Langham, on the other hand,
couldn't even talk his college adviser into letting him transfer classes. Why?
Oppenheimer's family and cultural background allowed him to absorb as if by
osmosis not only a sense of entitlement but the instincts needed to move
successfully among powerful, rich, talented people. Langham had none of that.
Since our whole monetary and trade systems are built primarily on contracts of
agreement, modern markets would not exist, and economic development could not
happen, without significant government intervention.
Those who also argue for an end
to government sponsored re-distributive mechanisms either overlook or dismiss
the role of periodic redistribution in sustaining economic prosperity. Without
government intervention in redistributing wealth in suitable amounts you
continue on this spiral of increasing inequality. "Nothing can preserve
the integrity of contract between individuals except a discretionary authority
in the State to revise what has become intolerable.
Just How
"Self-Made" are you? Take the test
Where you helped by any of the following on your way to wealth:
1. Laws concerning property or
contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
2. Public schools or employees
educated in public schools
3. Employees or customers who
rely on public transportation
4. Roads, bridges, airports,
sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and
maintained at public expense
5. Mail systems built and
operated at public expense
6. Public hospitals and
government-licensed physicians
7. Health and safety
regulations created and enforced at public expense
8. Police and fire protection
provided at public expense
9. Public libraries and parks
10. Any public amenities that
add value to commercial or residential real estate
11. Government contracts
12. Government-provided
business incentives
13. Regulatory agencies, such
as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that
sustain trust in the stock market
14. A government-granted
license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
15. The Internet
16. A form of currency
legitimated and backed by a stable government
17. The U.S. Military
And what is often over
looked social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling and rioting in
the streets. For proof of this you only have to look at what is happening in
other countries.
If we use these criteria to
determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the
number is in fact, precisely zero. If not for the legal and political
arrangements that we create and maintain as a society with contributions from
us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all and if not for what we call
"the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In
short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth of a nation.
Wealth always depends on
collective effort. Why? Because of what the "entirely self-made" myth
implies. If I have amassed a fortune solely through my individual talent and
hard work, then it is wrong for the government to take any of it away. By
further implication, taxation is wrong, and progressive taxation is really
wrong. Casting "the government" as an evil empire that confiscates
the fruits of one's labors also serves the interests of the division class.
Working-class and middle-class people who embrace this view are less likely to
take an interest in government as a means to build, protect, and fairly employ
the nation's common wealth. By helping to portray government as the enemy of
individual initiative and prosperity, further plays to the insecurities of the
middle and lower class.
Class difference
In a competitive, individualistic society like the U.S., the "entirely self-made" illusion is seductive. It gives us the pleasure of taking credit for our successes. It also mitigates the guilt that can come from recognizing our own class privilege. The "entirely self-made" myth is handy for both self-congratulation and self-absolution. But we should reject the mythology not just because it's wrong, but because, unlike many other comforting myths about American society, this one has especially pernicious consequences for democracy and community. At worst, it can make us feel that we have no right to democratic control of our common wealth.
If we recognize that all
private wealth depends on our common wealth, then we incur two obligations. One
is to contribute our fair share and the bigger the rewards we derive from
society, the bigger that share should be. The other obligation is to
participate in protecting our common wealth and determining how it is used. We
should not let those decisions be made only by a few self-serving people that
laugh all the way to the bank.
Why does one person get not
only much higher pay but also health benefits, greater authority, flexible work
hours, higher social status and a more comfortable work environment while doing
interesting work, yet the other person does the least desirable work for less
pay, no benefits, virtually no authority, with very low status, often in a
brutal work environment? None of the reasons we often give to justify this
hierarchy hold up when scrutinized. For example, we may say that the
professional went to school to earn a higher paying, higher status job. But
that does not take into account the different opportunities that people have
for education nor may that academic ability be the result of upbringing,
conditioning or heredity none of which the individual has any control over. And
none of this explains why people who spend all of their time moving money
around electronically do not really produce anything and in fact may actually
be destroying the work of others yet they get compensated at astronomical
levels. Neither the Wall Streeters, the professionals nor the immigrant workers
got to where they are all by themselves. Each was helped, or hurt, by others,
including others far removed from them in the economic system.
The Truth
The wealthier we are, the
higher our status in the system, the easier it is to delude ourselves that we
got there all by our own effort. In the modern world, where everyone is
connected to each other, being entirely self-dependent cannot be the road to
success. We must be able to depend on each other to be successful both as
individuals and as a society.
Many point to the great
inventors throughout history, like Henry Ford, as examples of self-made men
being wildly successful without others’ help. While it is true that many rise
from humble beginning, they need help from others to rise to the top. Ford was
a great innovator, but he needed outside investments to allow him to create
Ford. He even benefited greatly, both directly and indirectly, from the federal
government. He was awarded 161 patents that allowed him to profit from his
inventions, and transportation investments from various levels of government to
build roads and highways throughout America helped fuel demand for his cars for
decades. This myth is popular with the unenlightened for many reasons but I
know better. Some like the concept because it fits nicely with their narrative.
A country where any individual can flourish without any outside help requires
no government spending on medicine for the poor and elderly. No need for public
education; they can educate themselves. No need for scientific research grants;
if the free market wanted a cure for polio so badly, it could fund the needed
research. The fact is nobody got rich on his own nobody.
