3 ms·
> many humans see equalized outcomes as more a dystopian nightmare That's not correct. First: even in conditions of equal opportunities, outcomes almost alway
by goodpoint 5y ago
> many humans see equalized outcomes as more a dystopian nightmare
That's not correct.
First: even in conditions of equal opportunities, outcomes almost always include a percentage of randomness.
Practically all developed societies understand that and employ forms of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. This is widely supported by economists except few fringe libertarian extremists.
Second: difference in outcomes are seen as justified only within reasonable ranges.
Polls show that people find acceptable for top performers across various jobs to earn 2x, 3x, 10x the average income. Not 10000x.
- inglor_cz 5y ago"Business" is not a job, though, and that is where the most brutal differences lie. If some business (say, SpaceX) is 10 000 times as big as another business (Joe's Plumbing Co.), why shouldn't the earning scale too?
- horsestaple 5y agoBecause it's not 10 000x harder to manage SpaceX than Joe's Plumbing. Sure the compensation should reflect in some way the effort and difficulty. But these earning ratios between the top and bottom or big and small are out of whack. Parent points out that they don't mesh with people's sense of 'right' either.
- inglor_cz 5y agoWhat about responsibility? If Musk drives SpaceX into the ground, he will be hated universally and possibly jailed, given how much the U.S. now relies on his technology for access to space. If Joe drives his plumbing Co to the ground, he likely won't make it to the local evening news, much less be infamous forever, across the entire planet.