> This is a good principle, but it assumes that inequality is due to the fact that people who work more earn more... It doesn't assume that, it prescribes that

> This is a good principle, but it assumes that inequality is due to the fact that people who work more earn more... It doesn't assume that, it prescribes that. > ... which most proponents of egalitarianism argue isn't the case in today's society. Since most people get paid by the hour, those who work more (paid) hours do earn more. Of course not all work is equally valuable or productive, nor is all compensation commensurate to those factors. Still, even if in our system more work didn't translate into more compensation, that has no bearing on whether it should. If by egalitarianism you argue "equal pay for equal work", then that implies both unequal pay for unequal work, as well as income inequality for those who work less over those who work more. If we reduce inequality down to a single number, we cannot asses whether that inequality implies unfairness. We can achieve perfect equality by giving everyone exactly the same amount of money - no matter what work they perform, or whether they perform any work at all. That would obviously be unfair.