Archie Goodwin once said something like that.  I don’t think Rex Stout was serious when he wrote that but I think Archie’s right.

Consider two people.  One a rich successful real estate developer and the other a welfare mom.  Who’s taking more out of the economy?

The developer is a millionaire, drives several cars, has two homes, vacations in the world’s hotspots, eats in the fanciest restaurants and generally is living the high life.

The welfare mom gets about a thousand bucks of month in total support.  After paying for her apartment, cable bill, food, and clothing she doesn’t have anything left.  She thinks she gets so little that she’s surely not getting her share.  It’s clear to the her that the real estate developer is taking her share besides his own.  She has so little that she must be owed more.  Is she right.

No, the developer has earned his money.  More than that he’s added many times his wealth into the economy.

In the private enterprise system no transactions happen unless all parties feel they are better off with the transaction.  The developer is offering good housing to the consumers at a fair price.  If he’s any good he’s selling his expertise and negotiating to supply the home buyer with a better home than they otherwise would have had.  By building new homes he’s making the home market more affordable for everyone because he’s increasing competition.  He’s helping provide jobs for all of the tradesmen that build the homes.  Many of the contractors in their turn become wealthy.

He may be making the real estate sales people wealthy.  It’s not unlikely that a good salesperson could become a millionaire themselves by selling homes the developer developed.

He’s helping people up and down the supply chain from plumbing suppliers to lumberjacks up in Canada.

On the other hand what is the welfare mother producing?  Nothing.  What is she taking?  A lot actually.  That thousand dollars a month support she take costs a heck of a lot more than that.  First of all the welfare bureaucracy skims off most of the money in they system.  The IRS costs money to run and what with the extra record keeping it costs the taxpayer even more to file his tax return.  That measly thousand dollars a month probably costs the economy four or five thousand to supply her with a meager living.

And what does society get for its money?  Less than nothing.  Society loses from the extra bureaucratic overhead on the economy.  Society loses because taxes are a disincentive to produce.  Society loses because the taxpayer has less money to spend where it would be more productive. 

If she was off welfare she’d be producing something for her money.  Maybe not much at first, but it’d be better than nothing.  And the welfare and tax bureaucrats would have to find a productive job too.  They’d add to the country rather than subtract.

Of course there would be more money and more wealth in society so you’d expect that after a period of adjustment the welfare mom and the bureaucrats would be better off working for a productive enterprise rather than a counter-productive one.

So the developer would have more customers to sell to and more people to hire.  So what if he becomes a richer man and spends the money to benefit himself.  He’s working hard and smart so he deserves it.  If he buys a bigger boat that means the boat manufacturer and their employees are better off.  Of course they’ll have all the more incentive to work hard and become wealthy themselves.

If this doesn’t convince you ask yourself this question.  Would you like to live in a town full of the welfare moms or would you like to live in a town of rich successful real estate developers, boat makers, bankers, doctors, dentists etc etc.

It really is UnAmerican not to earn as much money as you can.