Selling Out for the Greater Good

Last week, the presidential candidates made a rare joint appearance in order to discuss the importance of public service, particularly by the country’s youth. It was only fitting that such an event occurred at Columbia, a school that serves as one of Wall Street’s largest recruitment pools. The trend of students pursuing high-paying corporate careers in finance and law is not limited just to Columbia—it is pervasive throughout America’s top-tier institutions, a point that Barack Obama highlighted in his remarks last Thursday. Ultimately, the key themes of the ServiceNation forum were not new, but rather part of an ongoing debate over the purpose of higher education and the social responsibilities of our country’s most promising students.

A June 23, 2008 New York Times article titled “Big Paycheck or Service? Students Are Put to Test,” addresses this phenomenon, citing the anxiety that many Harvard students and professors feel regarding the propensity of undergraduates to be “lured by high-paying corporate jobs.” The article also discusses “whether colleges should do more to encourage students to consider other careers, especially public service.” The article even cites Columbia alum Barack Obama, who stated during a commencement speech at Wesleyan that “the pursuit of narrow-self interest ... betrays a poverty of ambition.” In the face of these concerns, I would contend that the disparaging attitude taken toward the corporate world is indicative of a profound ignorance regarding the contributions of corporate professionals, who are in fact an essential part of our society.

The idea that students who choose to pursue high-paying careers in finance or law are “selling out,” turning their backs on society for the benefit of only themselves, is one that is widespread, yet poorly founded. There are two reasons why this conception is misguided. The first is a matter of simple economics. When individuals make money, they spend it, creating jobs and making the economy—and society— better off. For instance, a Sept. 15, 2008 Associated Press article covering the collapse of Lehman Brothers noted that “[e]very Wall Street job helps create two or three other jobs, meaning the reverse effect could also be true as the folding of Lehman could mean some 12,000 jobs are wiped out.”

The second point—which is just as simple but often overlooked—is that wealthy Americans pay most of the taxes in this country, and thus fund most of the government services. For instance, a recent Columbia grad making $100,000 per year on Wall Street can expect to pay $44,000 in taxes, which are then used to fund a variety of public service positions, either directly or indirectly through government grants and tax exemptions for non-profits. For an even more explicit example, we need only look at New York City, which according to the aforementioned AP article receives $70 million in direct taxes for every $1 billion of Wall Street profits. On the state level, Governor David Paterson announced in July that New York’s budget deficit would increase significantly due to lower bonuses on Wall Street. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine “has already carried out drastic budget cuts and is worried about more problems down the road in a state where at least 25% of the economy is Wall Street-dependent.” These cases highlight in very real terms a concept that seems to be ignored by many on the political left—in order to have good government services, there needs to be a strong private sector to pay for them.

Another common fallacy is the notion that the corporate world is a soulless vacuum, from which unsuspecting graduates may never return. The reality, though, is that many people who begin their careers in the business world eventually move into public service, usually occupying positions that give them an immense amount of power over public affairs—think of Michael Bloomberg’s ascension to mayor. In fact, career politicians are an extreme minority. The vast majority of our elected representatives—the people who arguably have the greatest impact on society—worked in the private sector before entering politics.

One of the greatest elements of American society is the importance that is placed on the individual’s right to choose his or her own path in life. I admire and respect people who choose to work for the government or non-profit groups, but I also believe that students who decide to join the corporate world deserve the same level of esteem. America was founded upon the principle of economic freedom, and the goal of bettering one’s life has always been a quintessentially American calling. At its heart, America is a commercially dynamic society, and we need only think about what our world would be like if philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett never existed to know what benefits the pursuit of prosperity can bring to all.

Bringing this issue back to Columbia, I think the character of our student body testifies to why anti-corporate bias is so wrong. As Columbia students, we have all demonstrated our intelligence, our drive to succeed, and our ability to think critically about the world around us. In light of all of these commonalities, the idea that one set of students would disparage another based on career choice smacks of little more than petty bias. Every student—be it investment banker or inner city school teacher—has the ability to better society, in one way or another.

Jon Hollander is a Columbia College junior majoring in economics. Reasonably Right runs alternate Wednesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com">Opinion@columbiaspectator.com