6 ms·

> they are ideologically opposed to a fairly paid society. The problem is that there isn't one universal definition of fair. Conservatives, liberals, libertar

> they are ideologically opposed to a fairly paid society. The problem is that there isn't one universal definition of fair. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, they generally all (with individual exceptions of course) want a society that is fair, but with different, mutually incompatible definitions of fair. Conservatives tend to preach that in a fair society, everyone gets what they deserve. Harder working, more talented? Then you deserve more. Socialists tend to preach that in a fair society, everyone gets what they need. The group who need the most doesn't overlap with the group who is most talented and able to work hard, so conservatives and socialists will never agree on what is fair, or even that the other group believes in fairness.

dmichulke 11y ago
Great comment! Just to add: The definition of fairness is subject to research under the name equity theory [0] The three extremes are (AFAIR): - equal distribution - distribution proportional to contribution - distribution proportional to need The problem with extreme 1 and 3 is that they provide no incentive to increase your contribution which is why "capitalism" is superior to "socialism" in terms of productivity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  Well, looking at the status quo the distribution of wealth in the current economy is not following Any of the definitions. Right now wealth is distributed according to your rank. Rank unfortunately is nowhere near proportional to contribution.
  - bko 11y ago
    The current system isn't perfect but in a market economy, new entrants challenge incumbents with systems that better tap the talents of the labor pool. You are free to design your own incentive system and compete with those you believe rely too much on rank.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      That's the issue. Leaving people free to do what they want does not produce a system that is fair or stable. Then again the alternative isn't too pretty either.
- wobbleblob 11y ago
  > The problem with extreme 1 and 3 is that they provide no incentive to increase your contribution which is why "capitalism" is superior to "socialism" in terms of productivity. That may be true under normal circumstances (you will likely see overall productivity drop once the poor start to starve or freeze to death) but that still leaves the fundamental disagreement whether overall productivity is more important than meeting everyone's needs.
  - dmichulke 11y ago
    Even the starving and freezing should want maximum productivity at the providers of food and heating.
    - wobbleblob 11y ago
      What they want at that time is food and fuel. If your children are starving, and someone else's aren't, any belief in fairness collapses. Crime and revolution are the result.
  - bko 11y ago
    By all counts, global poverty has fallen dramatically due to market economies and globalization. Your hyperbole is unnecessary. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill...
    - wobbleblob 11y ago
      I don't remember using any hyperbole, but you are using it. Has global poverty dropped due to unchecked free market capitalism? Is there a place where such a thing is applied?
      - bko 11y ago
        Last 20 years: Global shift from centrally controlled economies to more free market economies -> fewer people that are poor -> fewer people that are starving or freezing to death
- eevilspock 11y ago
  If you guys want to play the definition game, then we need to have an honest discussion on the definition of "contribution" and "deserve". Gold is rarer, than oxygen and carbon. The market prices it higher. Does that mean it contributes more? Is gold more important than oxygen and carbon? Sure, there needs to be an incentive to work hard. But there shouldn't be an incentive to being born in the lucky circumstances that leads you to becoming a surgeon, or the even luckier and more exclusive circumstances that lead you to becoming a CEO (white, male, relatively privileged). And why does a CEO who works hard 80 hours a week deserve more than a janitor working 3 jobs 80 hours a week just to keep her family afloat, to get her kid enough food and a safe place and help her get through the crappy public school that the CEO pays $30-60k a year (multiples of the janitor's salary) to keep his kid out of? There shouldn't be an incentive to treat people as commodities. Does a surgeon deserve twice as much if for whatever reason there are half the number of surgeons this decade compared to last? Does a janitor deserve half the pay just because the birthrate increased and there are twice as many people to compete against? (I'm simplifying. It's not important whether doubling the supply halves the price.)

dmichulke 11y ago

Great comment! Just to add: The definition of fairness is subject to research under the name equity theory [0] The three extremes are (AFAIR): - equal distribution - distribution proportional to contribution - distribution proportional to need The problem with extreme 1 and 3 is that they provide no incentive to increase your contribution which is why "capitalism" is superior to "socialism" in terms of productivity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Well, looking at the status quo the distribution of wealth in the current economy is not following Any of the definitions. Right now wealth is distributed according to your rank. Rank unfortunately is nowhere near proportional to contribution.
- bko 11y ago
  The current system isn't perfect but in a market economy, new entrants challenge incumbents with systems that better tap the talents of the labor pool. You are free to design your own incentive system and compete with those you believe rely too much on rank.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    That's the issue. Leaving people free to do what they want does not produce a system that is fair or stable. Then again the alternative isn't too pretty either.
wobbleblob 11y ago
> The problem with extreme 1 and 3 is that they provide no incentive to increase your contribution which is why "capitalism" is superior to "socialism" in terms of productivity. That may be true under normal circumstances (you will likely see overall productivity drop once the poor start to starve or freeze to death) but that still leaves the fundamental disagreement whether overall productivity is more important than meeting everyone's needs.
- dmichulke 11y ago
  Even the starving and freezing should want maximum productivity at the providers of food and heating.
  - wobbleblob 11y ago
    What they want at that time is food and fuel. If your children are starving, and someone else's aren't, any belief in fairness collapses. Crime and revolution are the result.
- bko 11y ago
  By all counts, global poverty has fallen dramatically due to market economies and globalization. Your hyperbole is unnecessary. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill...
  - wobbleblob 11y ago
    I don't remember using any hyperbole, but you are using it. Has global poverty dropped due to unchecked free market capitalism? Is there a place where such a thing is applied?
    - bko 11y ago
      Last 20 years: Global shift from centrally controlled economies to more free market economies -> fewer people that are poor -> fewer people that are starving or freezing to death
eevilspock 11y ago
If you guys want to play the definition game, then we need to have an honest discussion on the definition of "contribution" and "deserve". Gold is rarer, than oxygen and carbon. The market prices it higher. Does that mean it contributes more? Is gold more important than oxygen and carbon? Sure, there needs to be an incentive to work hard. But there shouldn't be an incentive to being born in the lucky circumstances that leads you to becoming a surgeon, or the even luckier and more exclusive circumstances that lead you to becoming a CEO (white, male, relatively privileged). And why does a CEO who works hard 80 hours a week deserve more than a janitor working 3 jobs 80 hours a week just to keep her family afloat, to get her kid enough food and a safe place and help her get through the crappy public school that the CEO pays $30-60k a year (multiples of the janitor's salary) to keep his kid out of? There shouldn't be an incentive to treat people as commodities. Does a surgeon deserve twice as much if for whatever reason there are half the number of surgeons this decade compared to last? Does a janitor deserve half the pay just because the birthrate increased and there are twice as many people to compete against? (I'm simplifying. It's not important whether doubling the supply halves the price.)