As for the basic structure, that's handled at the legislative level in setting tax rates, basic income or welfare and social security payments, and the like. If we acknowledge that there is social utility in terms of incentives both to work harder and to do the sort of work we want people to do as a resulr of differential pay, the lesgislature should make guesses about how much of a differential is necessary to benefit everyone, if that is the principle it adopts, set a floor with welfare or basic income or negative income tax, and a ceiling with a progressive tax. Beyond that, let the market and worker managed cooperatives decide. The proof that the allowed inequalities benefit (or do not benefit) everyone will emerge from experience.
But I don't think the govcernment should micromanage compensation, even by decreeing that it should be equal. That would be unwise and unenforceable, as a moment's thought will show. It would also destroy desirable incentive effects.
--jks
>
>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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com