Week 15 Discussion — How Equal Is Equal Enough? Inequality, Defaults, and the Line Between Is and Ought — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

This week's tools measure how income is shared and show how a checked box can change what people do. Neither tool settles what a society or an employer ought to do with that knowledge, and economists who agree on the measurements still disagree about the answers.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: In the course's illustrative income quintiles, households from the poorest fifth to the richest receive 5, 10, 15, 25, and 45 percent of income, so the Gini coefficient is 0.38 and the richest fifth's share is 9 times the poorest fifth's. One side argues that a society should do more to narrow gaps like this one, for example through taxes and transfers, because extra income does more for households with little and because family background shapes the opportunities a child gets. The other side argues that redistribution can weaken the rewards for working, saving, and starting businesses, and that a fair process with equal rules matters more than an equal result. Which view do you find stronger, and why? Keep your positive claims (what the data show or a study could test) apart from your normative ones (what ought to happen).

Option B: Madrian and Shea (2001) studied one large U.S. firm that began enrolling new employees in its 401(k) retirement plan automatically, with the right to opt out, and participation rose sharply. Supporters of automatic enrollment argue that a default helps people act on long-run plans that present bias keeps pushing back, while every employee keeps the choice to leave. Critics argue that whoever picks the default is steering people's money, that one default contribution or investment will not suit everyone, and that people who stay where they are put may never think the choice through. Should employers make automatic enrollment the default, and why? Label which parts of your answer are positive claims and which are normative judgments, and say what fact would change your mind. Do not invent participation figures or statistics, and name no company.

There is no single right answer. Reasonable people weigh hardship, opportunity, incentives, freedom of choice, and fairness of process in different ways. Pick the one you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say which view you find stronger, using the illustrative quintiles (cumulative shares of 5, 15, 30, 55, and 100 percent and a Gini coefficient of 0.38); for Option B, say whether employers should make automatic enrollment the default, using what the study found.
• Give the strongest version of the view you disagree with in one or two sentences, and say why you still hold your position or what part of the other view you accept.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (Lorenz curve, Gini coefficient, default, present bias) correctly.
• Label at least one of your claims as positive (what the evidence shows) and at least one as normative (what ought to happen).
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: point out where a post reads a Gini of 0 as perfect inequality, check whether a post treats a measurement as if it settled a question of values, or argue the other side of the question at its strongest. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B. The positive part: in the firm Madrian and Shea studied, enrolling new employees automatically raised participation sharply, and every employee could still opt out, so the default changed the starting point, not the choices. The normative part: I support automatic enrollment, because I think present bias keeps many people from acting on a plan they already agree with. The strongest objection is that one default contribution may not suit a worker with high debts, who may stay enrolled without thinking. I accept part of that, and the fact that would change my mind is how many workers end up worse off by staying in.

Notice how it separates what the study found from what the writer values, describes the default as a starting point, names present bias correctly, and gives the other side its strongest form. Someone who argued against the default, or about inequality, as carefully would meet the same bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com