Kayvan Gharbi, A Meritocratic Equality: The Great Australian Fairy Tale (Franc Carse Essay Prize Winner

A MERITOCRATIC EQUALITY THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN FAIRTYALE

by Kayvan Gharbi

Franc Carse Essay Prize Winner

Upon initial consideration of Aristotle’s posit that ‘the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal,’ it would be the foreseeable response of the unwitting Australian reader to instinctively repudiate such as elitist dribble. As a nation that considers itself founded upon ideals of egalitarianism and ‘equality’, the casual reader could certainly misconstrue such a philosophy as at odds with our national values. However, the most amusing irony in this knee-jerk reaction is that it is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of our nation’s identity and desires. Australian citizens are not and have never been ‘equal’ in any sense of the word - one should consider the essential question of not only what state of equality we truly desire, but of how such can be achieved.

Vonnegut’s ‘Harrison Bergeron’ grossly hyperbolises the concept of a world in which equality reigns supreme, and depicts an oppressive dystopia where abilities are stifled, and talent is strictly regulated. The novel is the perfect illus-

12

tration of how equality itself is by no means a state that humanity craves, as equality itself is of no intrinsic redeeming value. For example, a society in which all individuals languish in egregious poverty is ‘equal’ yet is in no manner a state that is to be desired. On the other hand, in a world in which all maintain an equally salubrious lifestyle, it is not the parity that is of value, but the intrinsic fact that all are maintaining a pleasurable existence. Despite such a clear illustration of the fallacy in the lustre of equality, I am forced to observe that its ideal still irrationally entices me, giving cause to question if such an attraction is perhaps due to some form of embedded natural inclination. Psychologists Alex Shawn and Kristina Olson experimented with children to examine precisely this quandary, discovering that if asked to distribute five rewards between two people, the child would generally dispose of the fifth reward rather than award it an create imbalance. Such initially seems to promote the idea that humanity naturally converges to a state of egalitarianism, yet when the child was informed that one of the recipients had completed a greater amount of work, they had no issue in providing the extra reward to such a being deemed as ‘more deserving.’ This action uncovers the true paradigm of our specious attraction for equality, being that we in fact do not harbour a desire for equivalence, but a desire for fairness. Indeed, we possess no intrinsic misgivings about inequality, on the condition that a disparity is generated in an impartial manner, and that its existence does not bring about a significant or prolonged suffering for an engaged party. Once such a distinction is made, it is plain to see that Aristotle’s statement is in fact not of synergy with the Australian ethos. We by no means desire parity - we instead appeal to a ‘goldilocks balance’ of inequality that maintains a widespread capacity for opportunity epitomised by the ‘fair go’ that our body politic loves to reference. The Australian ideal is intertwined with that of a meritocracy, being that if one possesses the faculty, talent, and drive, they should be given the opportunity to rise to the top upon the platform of their ability. While a ‘meritocracy’ is often referenced today in a positive light, irony lies in the fact that the term was born of satire (Young, 1958) due to its intrinsically paradoxical nature. The failure in the ideal is the unsustainability that arises out of its very definition. For the system it describes to be achieved, one must perpetually restrict inequity within the goldilocks constraints, in which overt unfairness and inequality in opportunity is mitigated to paltry levels. However, even if a goldilocks state is achieved temporarily, it cannot naturally maintain a self-sustaining equilibrium, as efflux of the meritorious to the top simply creates a new-generation aristocracy, pushing inequity to undesirable levels, and re-establishing defined social classes.

Superficially, one might make the assertion that Australia is in the unique position of occupying this enviable ‘goldilocks state,’ founded upon a flourishing middle class and bolstered by a range of comprehensive public services. In the past I too held such a belief, proudly opining that our emphasis for equality has always been one of Australia’s greatest virtues, intrinsic to our nation’s identity. However, as the natural

13

efflux arising from the paradox of an unrestrained meritocracy begins to take hold, we must tirelessly work to prevent our departure from an acceptable balance of inequality. Over the past 15 years, the richest Australians have captured two-thirds of new household wealth, and between 2003 and 2018 the top fifth of households increased their income by 130%, whilst the poorest fifth experienced only a raise of 50% (Gladstone, 2019). This insidious and deliberate erosion of the boundaries of our middle class has lurked in the shadows over the past decade, obfuscated by the fact that the net wealth of Australian households steadily increased by $4 trillion across the past 8 years. However, of this nascent capital, the richest fifth of households hold 61% whilst the impecunious bottom fifth hold a pitiful 1% (Australian National Accounts Table 2, 2018). What we are now observing is no longer the mythical meritocracy that our nation adamantly professes it embodies, but a terrifying slink back towards the socioeconomic classism that we proudly proclaim to have escaped. Given these conspicuous trends, one is forced to question the underlying cause of this exodus of the middle class. After short consideration, it is evident that the true bedrock of the issue is the vast inequality in housing wealth between socioeconomic divisions. The top fifth owns 48% of residential housing and land, while the poorest fifth possesses less than 1% (Australian National Accounts Table 8.8, 2018). One could argue that this in itself is of no consequence, as of course those with greater wealth would be in possession of more assets. This counter-claim leads us directly to the fact that the true root of the issue is not necessarily the gradient in housing distribution itself, but the benefits that arise from holding such. Our socioeconomic governmental policy is currently structured in such a way that it has allowed housing to become a medium through which the rich can grossly capitalise upon their wealth in a manner inaccessible to the poor, propagating and increasing the divide. This fact is elucidated by Professor Wendy

“Over the past 15 years, Stone, director of the the richest Australians have Australian Housing captured two thirds of new and Urban Research household wealth, and beInstitute, in her obsertween 2003 and 2018 the top vations that ‘wealth fifth of households increased breeds wealth where their income by 130%, whilst tax settings…enable a the poorest fifth experienced reduced tax on capital only a raise of 50%.” gains for homeowners’ and that the only way property wealth will begin to shift is if we ‘see taxation reforms around capital gains and negative gearing.’ Australia currently employs a Capital Gains Tax Discount that provides tax breaks to those undertaking significant long-term investments (chiefly through property), in a manner that is clearly inaccessible to lower income earners. This policy sees 73% of the benefit flowing to the top 10% of income earners, and essentially represents an avenue to avoid tax that is inacessible to lower income earners (The Australian Greens, 2016).

14

The consequences of a departure from the ‘goldilocks region’ are as egregious as they are varied (Holmes, 2019). The most obvious of such is that as a result of the widespread negative gearing undertaken by the wealthy, there is a shortage of housing in suburban/city areas, inflating housing costs and squeezing low income renters. In addition, it makes it near impossible for first home buyers entering the market to purchase property of their own, barring them from ever accessing the discounted benefits the government currently provides to property owners. In addition, such a system hinders and stagnates our economy as a whole. Dr Wiesel from the University of Melbourne observes that ‘when wealth is accumulated through speculation and rent-seeking on existing assets’ there is much less capital invested in ‘innovation and productivity,’ meaning future growth of our economy is jeopardised. From examination of our current system, it is lucid that not only is it unsustainable, it also promotes the reformation of distinct class divisions reminiscent of the wealthy landowners and scavenging serfs of the Middle Ages.

In the same way that the physical universe tends to disorder, I believe a state of inequality and divergence of the lesser from the better is not only a natural condition, but a state in which humans both desire and are destined to assume. Because of this very fact, it is clear that to achieve a perfect state of inequality – in which the innate ‘fairness’ desired by humanity can be exercised – meritocratic divergence must paradoxically be regulated to ensure that it can sustainably propagate. If our nation – the supposed paragon of the ‘fair go’ – is to ever realise the fairy tale we profess, significant reform of public policy must be implemented in a manner that ensures that the meritocratic porridge is not served ‘too hot’ or ‘too cold,’ but at a temperature which allows all to be nourished.