Analogies: The Dog Stipend

Let’s suppose the government decided to give a $50,000/year stipend to everyone who owns a dog. Why? Why not. I mean, dogs are great, most people love dogs, lots of people already own dogs, it’s really a common thing, practically part of the fabric of American society. Where does the money come from? We’ll get to that. First we’ll look at what happens. I would expect a lot more people to start owning dogs. Some people who didn’t even like dogs would probably get one. Most people would say they own their dog because they love it, and that they’d own a dog without the stipend, but they would also take the cash. But some people wouldn’t own a dog. Maybe they’re allergic. Maybe they don’t like dogs and they’re the type to stick to their principles. It’s their choice - they could get a dog and take the money if they want, so they really shouldn’t complain about missing out on the money. But that’s not it. If a significant majority of people get a dog (take the money) it would alter the value of money. If you earned $50k before, you now have $100k (and the marginal expense of owning a dog). But for those who stuck to their principles (and maybe their cats), they still only have $50k. They’re purchasing power is practically cut in half. Again, I hear you say, that’s on them. They could have gone along with the game. Sure, it’s rather arbitrary, and spending our government’s money to support dog-ownership means those resources aren’t available for many other much worthier goals, but that’s the game. Play along or suffer the consequences. I think most people would do just that. Most would take the money, and the large number of dog-lovers would never question the fairness of the system. But all of us know it isn’t right. Since this is a theoretical exercise it’s pretty easy to step back and say that forcing dog-ownership isn’t right. Penalizing people for sticking to their principles, especially when it doesn’t harm anyone, even worse, when going along with the system doesn’t even reward people for something worthwhile, is simply wrong. We know it is. Now imagine that it isn’t the government, but society itself. And instead of cash, it’s stature, respect, or privilege. Because this is in effect what we do. Maybe not to that degree, and not in such an obvious financial way, but our society rewards certain norms and standards that really don’t help society in any way (but clearly help certain subsets of society). Maybe it’s skin color, or being cisgendered, or simply meeting beauty standards like women wearing makeup and dresses. The amount of penalty/bonus varies depending on the societal standards and how strictly they’re enforced, but the concept is the same. We spend a huge amount of human capital enforcing ridiculous norms and waste more humanity by penalizing those principled enough to not play the game. We know it’s not right, but we so often take the cash anyway.