>
>
> >Sure, but how big the incentives should be is an empirical question in
>part.
> >Rawls suggests that inequalities of income are justified if they improve
>the
> >well being of the least well off. Would you consider it a reason to
>licence
> >greater differentials if experience showed that allowing, say, 100%
> >differentials made a significant positive difference to those on the
>bottom?
>
>I'm getting into this thread late, so my apologies if I'm rehashing
>anything.
>
>It seems to me the burden of proof is on the supporters of differential pay
>to prove that it benefits those on the bottom of the distribution. All
>other things equal, it is clear that giving more to some individuals leaves
>less for the rest, thereby making those at the bottom worse off.
Rawls would agree with you about the burden of proof, and the unjustifiability of differentials that do not benefit the less well off. In addition, though, you have to consider what sort of economy you have. If it isa centrally planned economy, you might mandate equal pay for all, and allow the bureaucracy to authorize departures that it thought promoted the welfare of all. If it were market economy, "equalization" would have to be done through taxes and welfare payments. --jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com