9 ms·
An underappreciated negative aspect of equality is total lack of enthusiasm and incentive. As inequality is a guarantee - no two people are alike in any aspect
by seibelj 4y ago
An underappreciated negative aspect of equality is total lack of enthusiasm and incentive.
As inequality is a guarantee - no two people are alike in any aspect and neither are their abilities as an employee - mandating (either by gun or union contract) lockstep equality in payments and job security, the highest performers are demoralized and put in the bare minimum or quit (if they can). The result is the ever-increasing shitty quality of the firm and its behavior. For modern examples see the NHS (bleeding doctors and nurses to the private sector) and American public schools in inner cities (highest global costs per student yet abysmal results).
There are valid criticisms about inequality but the pros far out way the cons.
- dmix 4y agoI find that most people arguing for top-down redistribution don't seem to care about if it makes everyone poorer as long as "equality for everyone" is the modus operandi. They see it as a moral imperative, the measurable outcomes and realities of the economic systems always get second rate treatment. It's always much, much easier to argue for 'fairness' and to rail against the rich... than it is to be realistic and accept that there will be very visible downsides but that alternatives are much worse in practice. Ditto with free speech, censorship is almost always a greater evil, with small exceptions, but when you try to defend it they try to pretend you only care about nazis/far-right. Sometimes doing the right thing is not easy and yes - it requires plenty of effort to weed out the assholes and wrong-doers (which the courts are doing now by punishing the law firms), but it's worth it in the end. And you don't have to tolerate the bad guys just because you didn't compromise societies freedoms and wealth to prevent them from existing in the first place. There's more ways to stop it than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- another_story 4y agoThis is mostly a strawman, since I don't see almost anyone arguing for complete equality of pay, status or position, merely that a handful of people shouldn't be able to accumulate the wealth of small nations on the back of others. In countries in Europe, and places in Asia, there are plenty of examples where there is less inequality and the students perform better.
- seibelj 4y agoEurope has many poor countries and even developed ones (UK) are having quality of life decreases due mostly to a lack of private sector success - the government eventually runs out of money without private business to fill its coffers. Happy to be in the US especially with the global economic recession incoming
- tchaffee 4y agoThe US has many poor states. Some of which have a lower quality of life than poor EU states.
- ok_dad 4y agoSounds to me like we should eliminate the idea that high performance and achievement should be rewarded with wealth or being raised above others. Perhaps it would be better if people learned from a young age that achievement is its own reward? Are we such animals that we need special treats in order to do the right thing? I think it’s a childish attitude that if you don’t get more cookies than someone else that you’ll throw down your work and have a tantrum.
- seibelj 4y agoI work 70 hours a week and there is 0% chance I would do that without having significant upside in my firm. I get more money and I deserve it, this is a free country and I don’t want anyone’s potential capped (and certainly not my own!).
- Zpalmtree 4y agoYou can wish all you like but it won't change human nature
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lupire 4y agoYou are overlooking the "extreme" part of "extreme inequality" Bezos and Musk would work just as hard if they only had 10% of the financial equity share in their companies that they have today.
- kortilla 4y ago> Bezos and Musk would work just as hard if they only had 10% of the financial equity share in their companies that they have today. This is absolutely not a given. Not because the value changes, but because it implies they no longer own a controlling interest in the company and have to answer to a board. Musk explicitly does not want to take SpaceX public because shareholders are terrible bosses for long term visions (colonizing mars).
- Natsu 4y agoMusk would have more difficulty funding all those companies that have made all those advances. And there are already very few Musks out there.
- tchaffee 4y agoOne person deciding where all that money is invested is a sort of economic dictator. Trying to live on Mars is polluting our planet. If you don't agree with that use of resources, it's not a benevolent dictatorship.
- Natsu 4y agoIt's far more democratic than that, at least insofar as people voluntarily gave the person money vs. it being collected in non-voluntary ways. And yes, that may be non-binary in that some of Elon's money has likely come from the government where we have less choice about spending it, other money may come from voluntarily purchased Teslas and whatnot.
- mola 4y agoThis. The problem is a dstribution of power most of all. If power is concentrated in government, it's as bad if it's concentrated with an individual with his own private police force. Private espionage force etc. All this strawman about the failures of absolute equality are just slight of hand to ignore the very obvious problem with a world where a single person have the power of a state. The state legitimacy should come from the people participation in govering themselves. Not from some psuedo meritocracy. Concentrated power without checks and balances is the problem, not specifically "the state". I wish all libertarians would wake up and see that very obvious threat to freedom.