3 ms·

The article doesn't implicitly assume that at all. You seem to have missed the entire point.

airstrike 9y ago
From the article: > Meanwhile, few who make the “I did it all myself” argument question the absurdity of seeing earnings as a measure of grit and moral worth. Does anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times greater than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his employees, who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?
- okonomiyaki3000 9y ago
  Exactly. Rather than "implicitly assuming" one thing, it quite explicitly states the opposite.
ams6110 9y ago
I think it does. Whether it's the subhead about linking work and reward or Johannes Siegrist's study of "unfair compensation: “effort/reward imbalance” (ERI)" The implication is clear that some people are rewarded less for the same effort. Well not all effort is equally valuable. Anyone can sweep a floor, so the effort of doing so isn't worth much.
- uyholes 9y ago
  This argument always seems backward to me, because the important issue with this topic isn't about the supply and demand for the floor sweeping, it's the assumption that the supply for the work of the CEO position is lacking, as opposed to restricted due to power structures or incentive for control of money. What I mean is, yes, everyone can sweep, the compensation is lower, but there is less power also. As you move up the hierarchy, you are not only potentially going up in skill, but also in the amount of power afforded and compensation enjoyed. Let's take a hypothetical case where all employees are equally skilled. Just for argument. Now you create positions of more and more power. By definition, there will be fewer positions of greater power, otherwise those higher positions would not have so much power. Because of the power those positions afford, there will be more competition for positions of more power, under the assumption that people want more power. Because those workers are all equally skilled, though, something other than skill must determine success in gaining those positions. And once they have those positions, they can use that power to increase their compensation relative to other employees. They can also use that power, consciously or subconsciously, to create or shape a narrative that they deserve that compensation more than others. This is hypothetical, and reality involves something in between the "floor sweepers get paid pennies because everyone can sweep" and "CEOs are randomly assorted into positions of unlimited power" but the point is that there are properties accrued by the inherent nature of power structures, and those properties lead to inequities just as much as supply and demand of skills. I can't believe that in the US the power structure side of reality is ignored so much in favor of the supply and demand side of reality, even when it's staring us in the face and glaringly obvious. And that you can't see society as complex and nuanced, and have to choose to be either a rabid capitalist or socialist.

From the article: > Meanwhile, few who make the “I did it all myself” argument question the absurdity of seeing earnings as a measure of grit and moral worth. Does anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times greater than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his employees, who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?

okonomiyaki3000 9y ago
Exactly. Rather than "implicitly assuming" one thing, it quite explicitly states the opposite.

ams6110 9y ago

I think it does. Whether it's the subhead about linking work and reward or Johannes Siegrist's study of "unfair compensation: “effort/reward imbalance” (ERI)" The implication is clear that some people are rewarded less for the same effort. Well not all effort is equally valuable. Anyone can sweep a floor, so the effort of doing so isn't worth much.

uyholes 9y ago
This argument always seems backward to me, because the important issue with this topic isn't about the supply and demand for the floor sweeping, it's the assumption that the supply for the work of the CEO position is lacking, as opposed to restricted due to power structures or incentive for control of money. What I mean is, yes, everyone can sweep, the compensation is lower, but there is less power also. As you move up the hierarchy, you are not only potentially going up in skill, but also in the amount of power afforded and compensation enjoyed. Let's take a hypothetical case where all employees are equally skilled. Just for argument. Now you create positions of more and more power. By definition, there will be fewer positions of greater power, otherwise those higher positions would not have so much power. Because of the power those positions afford, there will be more competition for positions of more power, under the assumption that people want more power. Because those workers are all equally skilled, though, something other than skill must determine success in gaining those positions. And once they have those positions, they can use that power to increase their compensation relative to other employees. They can also use that power, consciously or subconsciously, to create or shape a narrative that they deserve that compensation more than others. This is hypothetical, and reality involves something in between the "floor sweepers get paid pennies because everyone can sweep" and "CEOs are randomly assorted into positions of unlimited power" but the point is that there are properties accrued by the inherent nature of power structures, and those properties lead to inequities just as much as supply and demand of skills. I can't believe that in the US the power structure side of reality is ignored so much in favor of the supply and demand side of reality, even when it's staring us in the face and glaringly obvious. And that you can't see society as complex and nuanced, and have to choose to be either a rabid capitalist or socialist.