3 ms·
It worked for CEOs. Their salaries were disclosed due to a new law, and their salaries skyrocketed. Competition is good, not bad.
by falcolas 5y ago
It worked for CEOs. Their salaries were disclosed due to a new law, and their salaries skyrocketed.
Competition is good, not bad.
- ethbr0 5y agoCompetition is fairer, not so much good nor bad.
- HPsquared 5y agoFairness is an objective good to most people.
- ethbr0 5y agoI would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.
- falcolas 5y agoThe alternative also has a name: The "Tyranny of the Majority". Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?
- ethbr0 5y agoI would in the abstract. But then in the specific I would also tend to support policies that are good for me, even to the detriment of others. And since I'm a member of many majority classes... well, there you have my point.
- falcolas 5y agoThat stance is also known as, "Fuck you, I've got mine." I personally, despite also being in a number of majority classes, prefer to avoid being an asshole because of an accident of birth.
- ethbr0 5y agoBe that as it may in your case, are you arguing that most people will act contrary to their own best interests? That seems a shaky foundation to build policy on.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- HPsquared 5y agoThat depends on how 'fairness' is defined. Your definition of fairness appears to exclude a set of concepts which you see as unfair. It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".
- ethbr0 5y agoI would define fairness as equality of opportunity, for every person. Hence the previous comment's tautology that fairness will not be an objective good for most people, because (a) most people prefer their own self interest, (b) the status quo provides majorities advantages that minorities do not share, and (c) objective fairness will thus come at the expense of the majority (who are by definition more numerous than the minority). It's interesting most people are interpreting my comment as a preference, vs an observation.
- chii 5y agobut fairer is considered better, all things being equal.
- mywittyname 5y agoCan things that happen to CEOs be extrapolated and applied successfully to regular workers? Companies already buy salary information from brokers. So they already know what the competition is paying and generally try to keep in line with that. And that's pretty much a type of collusion. If everyone seeks to pay "market rates" based on these salary reports, then everyone will aim to pay about the same amount.