A general point about differential pay - it only makes sense (in the Rawls formulation you presented) if productivity can be improved to the extent that the economy is so much more productive that the standard of living increases to the point where being on the tail end of the differential pay economy is preferable to living in the everyone-gets-paid-the-same economy. And we're talking about more than material well-being here - you also need to factor in the social fallout from such an arrangement (the stigma associated with low wage jobs which go hand in hand with the prestige of high wage jobs, as well as the differentials in decision making power which usually accompany pay differences and the way this tends to undermine democracy, etc.) That's a tall order, and a case I haven't seen anyone in favor of differential pay even attempt to make beyond some handwaving claims that IF this burden could be met, then income inequality is justified. I want to see some justification. The world as it exists today seems to be an excellent argument against differential pay.
>Right, Yoshie, but just because we haven't got the rewards and incentives
>right now doesn't mean that we shouldn't have rewards and incentives. No
one
>on thsi list thinks we have the rewards and incentives right now. No one
>here who defends differential compensation thinks that the current
>capitalist market produces defensible outcomes. It's not to the point,
>therefore, to say to someone like me, who thinks that we should
>differentially reward effort and achievement, or like Catherine, who says
we
>should encourage education by paying the educated more (and I agree), that
>there are peverse incentives and rewards built into our current way of
doing
>things. However, Yoshie knows this, as her thoughtful post on the lessons
of
>perestroika from yesterday shows. --jks
You have to be very careful when deciding on what grounds to distribute the excess. For example, let's say you reward productivity. The more productive you are, the more money you get, up to twice as much as the lowest paid worker (to use the example you suggested yesterday). Imagine, just for the sake of argument, a logging operation. What makes a worker productive? Certainly effort, but also physical prowess. Some guy who is 6 ft. 6 inches tall and built like a rock will be more productive than someone who is 5 ft. 8 inches and scrawny. Unless the big guy is a total slacker, the little guy works will always be on the low end of the pay scale. What incentive does the little guy have to work hard? He might as well not work too hard since he'll make the same (low) salary in any case. His incentive to work has been _reduced_, or at best not enhanced.
This isn't a very realistic example, but the point is generally valid. People's capacities vary, and those who are well suited to a given task will benefit, not only because of their extra effort, but also because of their natural aptitude. I understand that you are aware of these types of issues, but they shouldn't merely be glossed over - they need to be adequately addressed, because it is a very difficult task to design rational criteria for above average pay.
So, I'm curious - what do you (and Catherine and others) propose?
Brett