4 ms·
You asserted: > Paying people well doesn't bother me, and I doubt it actually bothers anybody. To which I pointed out that it might well bother some groups of
by jfindley 11y ago
You asserted:
> Paying people well doesn't bother me, and I doubt it actually bothers anybody.
To which I pointed out that it might well bother some groups of people.
You also asserted that:
> ... has little to nothing to do with the problem of "wealth inequality". Everybody already knows that if it were possible to just pull wealth out of thin air everybody could have more.
To which I pointed out that it does in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, sustainable or no, as this experiment is (IMO) primarily about where and how payroll gets distributed, not about how large payroll might be.
I read your post carefully, several times, before replying. Please do mine the same courtesy. Thanks.
- jasode 11y ago>in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, __sustainable or no__, as this experiment [The __emphasis__ was mine]. jerf was saying that determining if "wealth equality" can be a solved problem depends on whether Gravity's strategy is sustainable and a ultimately proven as a success. jerf is looking beyond the salaries experiment and current media hoopla. jfindley is saying that the mere existence of the experiment without consideration of whether it succeeds is itself a conversation about "wealth inequality". You guys are talking about 2 different things.