4 ms·
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?
by cglee 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?
"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.