The central idea of economics is that there is always a catch, a trade-off that must be faced in choosing any alternative. The technical term for this is “opportunity cost.” In the strictly economic sense it describes money trade-offs. If a student spends $150 on an econ textbook, she cannot spend that money on clothing or entertainment. It also applies to time, the scarcest resource for many. If you take a Saturday morning class you cannot snuggle with your partner, mow the lawn or play a round of golf during those hours.
The general idea of omnipresent trade-offs extends beyond narrow economic choices to issues faced by society as a whole. In these cases, weighing alternatives is much harder than for an individual.
As a gun owner who has enjoyed recreational shooting for 45 years, I can appreciate the benefits of legal gun ownership. But I also recognize that a nation that allows widespread gun ownership inevitably will have more gun deaths than nations that limit gun possession, as we were reminded this week by the terrible mass killings at Virginia Tech.
Some find the trade-off between legal gun ownership – whether for recreational uses, perceived personal safety, or Jeffersonian civic liberty – and high levels of gun deaths an acceptable one. Many others do not..
Impassioned advocates want trade-off-free choices. Raising the minimum wage should help some and not hurt anyone. Free trade or unimpeded immigration should benefit many and harm no one. Stopping child labor globally should protect vulnerable children and not cut the income or nutrition of any family. Advising arrestees of their constitutional rights should not cause any criminals to avoid conviction.
Life isn’t so easy. All of the trade-offs listed above are real. The choices in all of these are more complex than the barebones trade-offs noted. In many cases there is no alternative to their resolution than the messy process of representative democracy. Inevitably there will be some downside to any alternative chosen.
Choices are particularly contentious when values vary widely and there is little public consensus. At any given time, repeal of some Bill of Rights protection – like Miranda warnings – probably would win a national referendum. In the wake of shocking news like 9/11, mass school shootings or celebrity murder acquittals, votes to limit certain civil liberties might gain large majorities.
Prohibiting people from taking on risk that they personally find acceptable is contentious. Growing up on a farm I took myriad risks – sharp tools, high, rickety ladders, unshielded power shafts, open electrical wiring, dangerous animals – that would violate contemporary work safety laws for adults as well as adolescents. We now prohibit exposing employed urban youths to such perils, but some farm kids still run the risks I did 40 years ago.
There are no easy answers to hard trade-offs. It is important to recognize that they always exist.
2007 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.