Our Fair Share by Brian Johnson

Brian Johnson has written a timely and important book in Our Fair Share.  I recommend reading it to appreciate his storytelling of this moment in America, the author's hopeful lens in analyzing our national history, and his innovative recommendation for providing more just, equitable economic growth.

Brian's writing is rich with empathy and care, both for the people's stories that illustrate the economic impact of the past fifty years and also for the country. He calls the book a 'love letter to our country.'   The narrative builds to a beautiful question: are we primarily a people of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?  The careful treatment of such a foundational question is worth the read alone.

The book follows a narrative arc of naming the problem (inequality in America), tracing the causes, illustrating the impact, and then proposing one way to ameliorate (he is careful not to say solve) the issue.  The book is well researched, with equally helpful academic data and personal stories.

I have only two quibbles with the analysis.  The first can be dismissed perhaps by the focus of the book, but I found it incomplete to not include the massive reduction in global inequality over the same period that Brian laments the increase in American inequality.  Some of the same forces he cites for increase in US inequality (globalization in particular) have also contributed to the single greatest reduction in poverty in human history over the past forty years.   I appreciate that may not be the focus of Brian's work, but had hoped to see some acknowledgement or even discussion of the potential ethical and moral tradeoffs of a system that has on net reduced human inequality globally while increasing domestic inequality in the US.

I also believe Brian was too easy on the upper middle class as a whole, finding it easier to cite statistics and research on the 1% throughout the book, without holding to account the larger pool of wealth and power that has led to inequality. Richard Reeves, and others, have documented a range of policies from taxes to housing that have been driven by the top 20% which have driven inequality.  Zoning policies in particular are too absent here, but in general Brian is too gentle on the influence of the upper middle class policy preferences when he refers only to 'family dynamics' in the highly educated marrying each other.  

As Brian's argument builds, I found myself moved by the personal stories and persuaded of the problem by the graphs and academic citations.  I like the proposed solution, a 5% Citizen Dividend assessed on all corporate profits and distributed equally to all citizens.  

I believe Brian rightly intuits the political economy such a proposal: a percentage, rather than a fixed amount, aligns interests of all in the success of the corporation, and a direct, physical payment to all citizens, rather than a tax offset or new social program, provides program equality and tangibility.  Unmentioned, but significant, is that the technology to record and make such a payment efficiently is new, allowing for such a scheme to exist for the first time.

Where I find the argument more shaky is the insistence that the citizen dividend is a right, not a new tax.  I agree with the sentiment - corporations make their money, in part, using common resources 'owned' by the collective, not least the system of laws and norms that afford all sorts of benefits to American companies that businesses outside of our country would love to have.  

Yet, I can't think of a 'right' that imposes a burden on an individual company or natural person in the same way as the citizen dividend compels all companies to fork over 5% of their profits.  The right to vote, to assemble, to bear arms, etc all are protections afforded to citizens to be independent in some respect from State overreach. Where have the Courts, or laws, found citizen rights that require another citizen (or corporations) to proactively pay a cost?

The closest that comes to mind is the regulation of negative externalities. Companies are required to pay costs to ensure they aren't polluting streams and waterways, or to reduce noise if their business negatively interferes with neighbors.  In some sense this means each citizen has a 'right' to be protected from a set of negative harms from all other citizens and corporations, imposing a direct obligation on all other citizens and corporations to comply.

But those burdens imposed by the negative right seem both much more specific ('avoid harming others when conducting your business') and narrow ('solve in whatever way you want, just solve it').  As much as I would like to, I don't see how Courts could find a 'right' for the citizenry to compel all companies to pay 5% of profits.

Perhaps the language of 'right' is more metaphorical than legal. If there is support, and Congress passes a law, the Courts have certainly upheld the ability for legislators to compel corporations (and individuals) to pay a percentage of profits in the form of taxes.  Yet, Brian goes to great lengths to distinguish the citizen dividend from a tax, and insisting that the revenue earned will go direct to the people and not to the government.   His intuition, which I agree with, is that words matter here.  But, I fear more work needs to be done to shape the language.

Reading Our Fair Share, I couldn't help but think what Milton Friedman, the conservative, pro-market paragon and author of Capitalism & Freedom, would think. Friedman is famous for the claim that the only social responsibility of business is to make profits. He argued for the elimination of corporate taxes, limited government, and unwavering support for individual 'freedom' over government 'intrusion' in the form of social welfare policies aimed at reducing inequality.

(I also recommend reading Capitalism & Freedom. Seeing the arguments that formed the foundation of today's market driven capitalism, and resulted in much of the inequality Brian Johnson highlights, from today's lens is an invaluable exercise.  It is difficult to imagine how a book which specifically calls out the ownership of the Grand Canyon National Park as an example of government overreach, among many other excessive views, would get the same resonance today.)

Here's the thing, I believe could Friedman endorse Johnson's Citizen Dividend. Friedman championed markets, and the benefit for all that results from individual firms devising new ways to increase profits.

Friedman detested government intrusion in the economy, and especially, in his view, the inefficiency of government programs in providing for social wealth.  He was an anti-institutionalist.  

Johnson's Citizen Dividend aligns corporate profits with social welfare, while avoiding centralized government action (and social planning).  While the book and Brian's worldview is undoubtedly progressive, there is a direct line to the thinking of the modern day apostle of free market thinking.  

Our Fair Share is thorough and innovative.  The arguments presented deserve a place in our national dialogue as the knowledge economy continues to transform individual jobs, the role of corporations in our lives, and our collective prosperity.  I hope there is space for such a discussion.