2 ms·
> Your suggestion-- that income should be justified based on how much of someone's life is eaten by their job-- smacks of the same kind of moralistic posturing
by gizmo 18y ago
> Your suggestion-- that income should be justified based on how much of someone's life is eaten by their job-- smacks of the same kind of moralistic posturing for which you criticize the author of the original piece.
I didn't mean that one's salaries --should-- be inversely correlated to spare time. But if you have want some metric of "fairness", then looking at free time is better than looking at hours worked - because that way you measure sacrifice, and a relation between sacrifice and compensation is seen by many as fair.
The notion that the numbers of hours worked and salary should be correlated makes no sense to me at all.
- icky 18y ago> But if you have want some metric of "fairness", then looking at free time is better than looking at hours worked - because that way you measure sacrifice, and a relation between sacrifice and compensation is seen by many as fair. A better metric of fairness would be, how equal were the opportunities to become profession X? If being a banker is so great, and being a teacher is so (comparatively) awful, then wouldn't it be fairer to simply equalize the opportunities, and let a glut of bankers and a shortage of teachers balance out the wage difference?