3 ms·
I was wondering when these super conservative groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, would start using the "inequality is good" argument. There's a lot to li
by cglee 19y ago
I was wondering when these super conservative groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, would start using the "inequality is good" argument. There's a lot to like about an utopian society based solely on meritocracy. But the truth is there are large numbers of people who cannot compete on equal footing due to circumstances that are/were out of their control. It's like taking a Chinese class with a bunch of Chinese students and you're the only one who doesn't know the difference between Mandarin and Cantonese.
Using the Google founders as the example of "inequality being good" is ridiculous. Most people don't have a problem with rewarding innovative work; people have problems with not providing a baseline for those who can't. In a pure pay for performance society, those who can't perform, won't get paid. Is this fair? On the surface, well yes, maybe. But what if the REASON for their non-performance is based on systematic oppression and lingering effects thereof? Is a pure pay for performance system still fair?
What about the handicapped, depressed, and otherwise ill affected?
The pay for performance (or inequality is good) argument is fine when no one gets hurt, when the low performers, say, will get a 1% instead of 10% bonus. But when we're talking about the lower levels of society, where people can literally go homeless or die of untreated disease, then it's not so easy to come up with these fantasy theories.
- pg 19y agoYou're inventing straw men. The writer isn't advocating that people only get whatever wealth they produce. That would mean leaving the severely ill to starve.
- lupin_sansei 19y ago"It's like taking a Chinese class with a bunch of Chinese students and you're the only one who doesn't know the difference between Mandarin and Cantonese." But the answer to that isn't to give you all the same grade regardless of how good your Chinese is, is it. The best thing to do is to grade you accordingly, and for you to find some other class to study.
- cglee 19y agoTo carry the analogy further, it'll be if we're only rewarding on mastery of Chinese. For those who are not on equal footing, what other "class" can they take? "Good inequality", that is, inequality resulting from differing levels of productivity, is only relevant when everyone starts at roughly the same level. When current inequalities already exist, isolating the productivity variable is very difficult without a social and historical context.
- lupin_sansei 19y ago"To carry the analogy further, it'll be if we're only rewarding on mastery of Chinese. For those who are not on equal footing, what other "class" can they take?" Whatever class they like (Math, science, etc.). Preferably one they are better at than Chinese. ""Good inequality", that is, inequality resulting from differing levels of productivity, is only relevant when everyone starts at roughly the same level." So you're saying that since people are born with differing abilities then they should all get paid the same? You understand that one of the chief ways to motivate people to be more productive is to pay them for it. Who would be willing to work start up hours if you only got paid the same as someone who worked 40 hours a week?
- cglee 19y agoThat's not what I'm saying.