3 ms·
People have been arguing for "equitable pay" since before the word 'postmodernist' ever entered the English lexicon. In general, equitable pay for a job would e
by claudiawerner 4y ago
People have been arguing for "equitable pay" since before the word 'postmodernist' ever entered the English lexicon. In general, equitable pay for a job would entail that no two people are paid differently on the basis of certain characteristics we might deem irrelevant (and this basket of characteristics varies depending on who you ask).
Further, economists, political scientists, and philosophers alike have written on the topic of what is equitable in a capitalist economy, and in terms of distributive justice; there are very few people who would define equitability as the mere existence of an agreement between parties, including the legal system (for example, some contracts can and are deemed unconscionable, and selling organs or oneself into slavery are illegal).
- pxmpxm 4y agoYou're conflating "equal" and "equitable". The latter of the two is along the lines of "fair" - a fully nebulous term in this context; its entire raison d'être is to push agenda narratives. The idea of equitable outcomes is a common law concept used for things like contract breach remedies, which is again something that the great-grand-parent touched up on. That is, it's an idea used for compensation when one party walks away from a mutual agreement - the logical implication is that mutual agreements are equitable, which is why compensation is needed to re-establish that state upon a breach.
- claudiawerner 4y ago>the logical implication is that mutual agreements are equitable But nobody uses 'equitable' in this sense, as people have a variety of reasons to engage in a mutual agreement, where upon asked one or even both parties would agree that the agreement isn't 'equitable' or fair. To say that mutual agreements are equitable is only because of the assumption that the agreement wouldn't have occured or been accepted if the agreement isn't equitable - which is obviously false, given that people agree to heavily unfair (though not unconscionable) contracts all the time.
- tomcam 4y ago> no two people are paid differently on the basis of certain characteristics we might deem irrelevant Who is the “we” deeming those characteristics as relevant? This entails legislators creating a central list of job characteristics, doesn’t it?
- claudiawerner 4y agoI'm not (yet) talking about the law; a prerequisite to law (among other things) is rational deliberation among the members of society. The "we" is every party interested in constructing social norms.
- tomcam 4y agoCan you give me an example of how it would be implemented?