4 ms·

It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretica

It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretical); I'd be really interested to hear from an economist.

harimau777 8y ago
That's a good point. I don't have much theoretical background in economics so I feel like I'm unintentionally speaking vaguely due to not knowing the correct/best terms and theories. I think the way I would define fair (and obviously this is somewhat a value judgement rather than objective fact) is that: I don't think its unjust that a CEO gets payed more than a line worker, but when the company succeeds then I think the increase in profits should be divided up such that the ratio of their incomes stays about the same. Also, when I say "just" I don't mean that in an extreme way where if profits aren't divided up 100% fairly then employees are oppressed wage slaves. Even if my ideal system where implemented things would still be subjective. For example, what if my employer implemented very generous benefits but didn't pay quite as well?
- weberc2 8y ago
  I guess the problem I have with terms like "justice" and "injustice" (not to pick on you specifically) is it seems to presume that poverty is the result of greed or nefarious motives when it's exclusively the result of economic inefficiency (sometimes this inefficiency is caused by greed). In failing to properly diagnose the problem, solutions come out which actually reduce market efficiency and thus perpetuate more poverty. Moreover, everyone already agrees that poverty is bad, so arguing about "injustice" instead of "optimizing the economy" seems unlikely to persuade anyone. I'm already on board with eliminating poverty! Don't tell me "hiking the minimum wage is the right thing to do and the economics will work itself out", show me the math that says we can do it without inadvertently creating more poverty.

harimau777 8y ago

That's a good point. I don't have much theoretical background in economics so I feel like I'm unintentionally speaking vaguely due to not knowing the correct/best terms and theories. I think the way I would define fair (and obviously this is somewhat a value judgement rather than objective fact) is that: I don't think its unjust that a CEO gets payed more than a line worker, but when the company succeeds then I think the increase in profits should be divided up such that the ratio of their incomes stays about the same. Also, when I say "just" I don't mean that in an extreme way where if profits aren't divided up 100% fairly then employees are oppressed wage slaves. Even if my ideal system where implemented things would still be subjective. For example, what if my employer implemented very generous benefits but didn't pay quite as well?

weberc2 8y ago
I guess the problem I have with terms like "justice" and "injustice" (not to pick on you specifically) is it seems to presume that poverty is the result of greed or nefarious motives when it's exclusively the result of economic inefficiency (sometimes this inefficiency is caused by greed). In failing to properly diagnose the problem, solutions come out which actually reduce market efficiency and thus perpetuate more poverty. Moreover, everyone already agrees that poverty is bad, so arguing about "injustice" instead of "optimizing the economy" seems unlikely to persuade anyone. I'm already on board with eliminating poverty! Don't tell me "hiking the minimum wage is the right thing to do and the economics will work itself out", show me the math that says we can do it without inadvertently creating more poverty.