Justin,
I admit that I'm skeptical of the benefits of income inequality, but you agree with me that the burden of proof is upon the supporters of inequality, so by your own admission you have to justify your scheme to the skeptics like me.
>Well, you can make burdens of proof impossibly high. First of all, I don't
>think there is any generallly appricable a priori way of saying what makes
>any worker more productive. Productivity measurement is a rough and ready
>matter that is highly context specific. A lawyer can bill more hours, but
it
>matters what her win record is too; a professor can publish more papers,
but
>where she publishes and how important the work is matter. No doubts imilar
>issues arise with loggers, though I don't know what they would be.
>
>I will add that I do not think that differential pay is solely justified
by
>productivity differentials, but also by various other incentives to get
>people to do socially useful work. I am not sure that one can or should
>seperate out what percentage of the differentials are due to what.
This is my point. It is very difficult to come up with a rational scheme for giving more money to some and less to others. To make things easier, let's restrict the matter to lawyers, since that is an area you know a lot about. What kind of system would you think is reasonable when it comes to rewarding a lawyer? What should determine which lawyers get a premium, and which do not?
>From what you've said so far, it should have something to do with
productivity, but also something not to do with productivity. You've got
my interest, but its still pretty vague. I want something more specific.
I know I'm putting you on the spot, but you've admitted that you bear the
burden of proof. And I would really like to explore this in more depth.
>Personally, I think this talk of equalization of compensation if petty
>bourgeois idealism; workers don't want it; Marx rejected it. It's liberal
>guilt. But of course that doesn't mean it might nor be supported with good
>arguments. As it happens, I don't think so.
I don't agree. I think talk of the need for differential pay rates is a type of rationalization by people in priviledged positions who want to maintain their priviledge. Not with everyone. Occasionally I meet someone who has thought about it a bit, but in the vast majority of cases it is a convenient way to justify the fact that they are getting more than everyone else.
Brett