3 ms·
This is actually a coherent and legitimate argument rooted in objective data. Often you don't really get that when supporting what is not a popular position. Pe
by bilbo0s 2y ago
This is actually a coherent and legitimate argument rooted in objective data. Often you don't really get that when supporting what is not a popular position. People who support unpopular positions generally ignore data. (As do many others. At least most people ignore any data that disagrees with them.) You've taken the basis of the supposition, productivity, quantified it. Attributed it. And argued that income should follow attribution. Bravo.
You could do without the "should get paid less" part, as it puts part of your argument in the realm of subjectivity rather then objectivity for no real reason other than the tendency towards emotional responses I was mentioning earlier. ("Easier" life is completely subjective.) But the first part of this argument is really good.
- keybored 2y ago“Should get paid less” is the obvious value judgement from the employer’s perspective. Nothing subjective about it if we assume self-interest. And a socialist could have made the exact argument[1]. This is how capitalism progresses. I’m happy with the conclusion that we’ve reached. Bravos to all involved. [1] And maybe they are one.
- bilbo0s 2y ago“Should get paid less” is the obvious value judgement from the employer’s perspective. Nothing subjective about it In the original comment, the argument of "should be paid less" was based not on an objective evaluation of productivity components on the part of the employer, but rather on a very much subjective evaluation of the employee's now "easier life".