4 ms·

I'm concerned with the a priori assumption that inequality of outcome is bad, partly because it leads directly and necessarily to idealistic, and frankly unequi

I'm concerned with the a priori assumption that inequality of outcome is bad, partly because it leads directly and necessarily to idealistic, and frankly unequivocally unacheivable, communism. But I'm not trying to argue here, I'm trying to understand. People here that think inequality of outcome is a thing to be fought, help me understand when enough equality of outcome is enough. At what level of outcome distribution will the fight be won? When is the fight concluded and victory acheieved? Note: it's important to distinguish equality of outcome, which is a belief of the modern left, from equality of opportunity, which everyone on the political spectrum has been in favor of for at least a generation.

harimau777 8y ago
One possibility might be equal output for a given situation. For example, if a business increases profits then everyone who contributed should benefit. I'm not saying that a factory worker should make as much as the CEO, but they should both share in the reward since they shared in the work
- whb07 8y ago
  And yet I’ve never heard the counter outcome being discussed. What do you do when the business goes on a down period and there’s just enough money to pay the employees but not the owner(s)? Assuming the employees don’t get let go (to have a simple example here), do the employees have to get a negative delta on their salary? If an owner’s pay is the true net post expenses, what if that net amount is $ < 0?
  - danaris 8y ago
    I think the answer to this is a bit more complicated, and requires demonstrating how the other answer is also a bit more complicated. When the business goes up, the first thing that happens should be neither giving money to the owners nor giving money to the employees. It should be putting some money in the bank. The most salient reason for this is that just because the business is up this quarter (or over whatever short-term period is being considered) does not mean that is a stable increase. Similarly, when the business goes down, the first thing that should happen is neither reducing the pay to employees nor reducing the pay to owners. It should be dipping into savings. That is, in fact, why the savings should be set up in the first place. With this stated, it should become clearer what the answer to your question really is. Because neither employees nor owners should see an increase in pay until there are stable increases in business over multiple measurement periods, similarly they should not have to see a decrease unless there is a stable decrease in business. And if there is a sustained decrease in business, then there are likely other efforts going on to combat it, both in terms of cutting staff and in terms of finding out why the decrease has happened and trying to reverse it, so any decrease in compensation would not be happening in a vacuum. The shorter statement that increases in business should result in employee wage increases is not (generally) meant to indicate that every temporary fluctuation in business should ripple to the employees, but rather that they should be given some of the long-term increase, as opposed to the owners getting the entirety of it and the employees getting nothing.
Buldak 8y ago
Where do you get the impression that the "modern left" values equality of outcomes tout court? In my experience, the argument is rather that inequality of outcomes is evidence of inequality of opportunity, or other injustices. You can argue about that, obviously, but in any case it is not the same as heedlessly enforcing equality of outcomes.

harimau777 8y ago

One possibility might be equal output for a given situation. For example, if a business increases profits then everyone who contributed should benefit. I'm not saying that a factory worker should make as much as the CEO, but they should both share in the reward since they shared in the work

whb07 8y ago
And yet I’ve never heard the counter outcome being discussed. What do you do when the business goes on a down period and there’s just enough money to pay the employees but not the owner(s)? Assuming the employees don’t get let go (to have a simple example here), do the employees have to get a negative delta on their salary? If an owner’s pay is the true net post expenses, what if that net amount is $ < 0?
- danaris 8y ago
  I think the answer to this is a bit more complicated, and requires demonstrating how the other answer is also a bit more complicated. When the business goes up, the first thing that happens should be neither giving money to the owners nor giving money to the employees. It should be putting some money in the bank. The most salient reason for this is that just because the business is up this quarter (or over whatever short-term period is being considered) does not mean that is a stable increase. Similarly, when the business goes down, the first thing that should happen is neither reducing the pay to employees nor reducing the pay to owners. It should be dipping into savings. That is, in fact, why the savings should be set up in the first place. With this stated, it should become clearer what the answer to your question really is. Because neither employees nor owners should see an increase in pay until there are stable increases in business over multiple measurement periods, similarly they should not have to see a decrease unless there is a stable decrease in business. And if there is a sustained decrease in business, then there are likely other efforts going on to combat it, both in terms of cutting staff and in terms of finding out why the decrease has happened and trying to reverse it, so any decrease in compensation would not be happening in a vacuum. The shorter statement that increases in business should result in employee wage increases is not (generally) meant to indicate that every temporary fluctuation in business should ripple to the employees, but rather that they should be given some of the long-term increase, as opposed to the owners getting the entirety of it and the employees getting nothing.

Buldak 8y ago

Where do you get the impression that the "modern left" values equality of outcomes tout court? In my experience, the argument is rather that inequality of outcomes is evidence of inequality of opportunity, or other injustices. You can argue about that, obviously, but in any case it is not the same as heedlessly enforcing equality of outcomes.