h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not convinced that straight equality is really how we're designed... Or necessarily desireable. Although having equal chances at a young age would be nice to start from. A position where every child can have the same education and the same chances and choices would be great, but a) we seem to arrange ourselves in heirarchies by status, no matter how hard we try not to and b) what about those who are not as smart, or physcially able, perhaps? You simply cannot average everything out so that *everyone* is equal, can you?

I dont have a problem with some people having more than others.

I do have a problem with those with more refusing to give to those with less, whether it's through taxes or more directly.

Sorry if all this is discussed in all the books and people you all keep referring to...

S-B L:
>>Unfortunately equality of ability and opportunity do not result in equality of outcome, so to achieve your fairness you need to impose some control on those on whom lady luck shines most brightly. Is this fair?

But think about it another way. You're not imposing control on anyone, merely taking away sufficient of their money to make life less equal for others. So the question is 'What do *they* get for the money?'

Well...according to Wilkinson and Pickett's findings, not only does the increased fairness that the wealthy have purchased deliver better outcomes for the less well-off, *but also for the wealthy themselves*.

And remember - we're not talking about 'equality of outcome', simply about less *inequality*.

Robyn:
>>Sorry if all this is discussed in all the books and people you all keep referring to...

Not a problem. You can always read them yourself.

Equality of opportunity comes first. But of course, not everyone is born with equal abilities. The more gifted should take the roles best suited for their gifts - doctors, lawyers, architects, scientists, writers, artists etc etc etc. No argument there.

But as s-b-l hinted, this isn't enough. The next step is to break the artificial link between what we might call the prestigious jobs for which the talented are best suited and the hugely unequal salaries that generally go with those roles.

Let's say that x and y both have fair equality of opportunity. If x has the talent and ambition to be a brain surgeon and y only has the talent and ambition to do a fairly routine job, it doesn't follow that they should both get the same investment in their education. If x wins, by merit, the competition for that training place on the brain surgery course, she deserves it. There's no question of clipping her wings or holding her back in that sense.

But why does it follow that the 'talented' deserve the lion's share of the resources/pay? It doesn't.

Rawls has it right because he advocates arranging incentives in such a way as to benefit the least well off. I wrote a guide entry on Rawls which I linked earlier, which hopefully isn't too tough a read.

With all those hours ,days and weeks I have free... yup, I'll do that!


Or alternatively I can say it how I see it and be corrected, if need be, by those who evdently *have* had the time and sufficient patience to read through these things...

There's always the evenings.

tell you what Ed, you read em all out onto CDs for me and send em through, I'll listen while I'm asleep

So many books and such a short life.

Oh dear, Otto. That's quite a prejudice you have there The architect on any given (German) construction site - unless it's some kind of superstar architect - earns less per hour than the construction workers.

Also, people with vocational training (I'm really kicking myself for not having done a carpentry apprenticeship before Uni!) start earning money much sooner, so have more time to save up for old age when compared to Uni graduates. Where's the fairness in that, unless you compensate with higher wages later? There's also the question of why anyone would want to take a high-risk, high-responsibility job when they could earn the same money for a simpler one. If an engineer miscalculates the design of a bridge, he's personally liable for the damage. I'm not saying those jobs *should* be paid higher - just that if they aren't, you need to remove some of the negative aspects to compensate, while still ensuring that people will take their jobs seriously...

(Something that annoys me: the German constitution guarantees equal educational chances and free schooling for all. Yet they've recently introduced tuition fees, even though it's been proven that it turns those from poorer backgrounds away. And they're not even putting the money towards making the educational system better - most of it gets lost somewhere in the administration, or they use it for faculty field trips, or to renovate their parking garages! )

"Also, people with vocational training ... start earning money much sooner, so have more time to save up for old age when compared to Uni graduates. Where's the fairness in that, unless you compensate with higher wages later?"

It's only under the current system that students and trainees are expected to subsist on low incomes. In a more equal society, students and trainees of all kinds would be paid properly. No bonanza later must entail no losing out now - I agree entirely.

"There's also the question of why anyone would want to take a high-risk, high-responsibility job when they could earn the same money for a simpler one. If an engineer miscalculates the design of a bridge, he's personally liable for the damage. I'm not saying those jobs *should* be paid higher - just that if they aren't, you need to remove some of the negative aspects to compensate, while still ensuring that people will take their jobs seriously..."

I don't disagree with much of that, although I think people are motivated by status more than money, and by ambition and personal interest. There's no reason that I can see not to use pay differentials to attract people to jobs that have substantial downsides - stress, unsocial hours, danger, tedium, yuckyness, responsibility, physical hardship. But that isn't how society is organised at the moment, where wages in no sense map on to the downsides of those jobs.

Otto, I just finished reading your entry on Rawls.

The difference principal in particular is an idea that I've heard before, I didn't know where it came from. I'm not sure if it's original to Rawls.

Out of interest...what's the incidence of injury or death from workplace accidents amongst architects? In the UK at least, construction work is by some long way the most dangerous form of employment. Plus - it's physically knackering and takes place outdoors.

That depends entirely on what branch of architecture you're looking at. Obviously, the ones who sit in an office designing things all day are less at risk than the ones out on the site... (Usually not the same person, except in very small offices!)

I haven't ever worked as an architect, though I have spent several summers doing construction work. So I don't know.

Tumsup: "Smith also pointed out that the worst of all possible governments was one controlled by business interests. Marx said the same thing but much more eloquently."

No way! Smith was much more eloquent than Marx:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Otto: "Launch of citizens income scheme"

I'm a big fan of this idea, which seems to be gaining quite a lot of traction now. (Still too radical for most governments to even consider doing it of course.)

sbl: "Unfortunately equality of ability and opportunity do not result in equality of outcome, so to achieve your fairness you need to impose some control on those on whom lady luck shines most brightly. Is this fair?"

If indeed it is about luck, then why would you think it wasn't fair?

>No way! Smith was much more eloquent than Marx:<

Sorry Dogster, I keep forgetting the

I know there's much brilliant analysis in Marx but I have to get it second hand. If I try to read the original.. Did he expect to get paid by the word like Dickens or what?

<>

Tut tut, playing with stats.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Q1Z-6kiHTg8J:personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/020/Labour%25202005/Most%2520Dangerous%2520jobs.pdf+most+dangerous+occupations+uk&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk

Fishing is by far the most dangerous work, with 103 fatalities per 100,000. Contruction is down in fifth with 8.4. It just happens that there are way more construction workers than fishermen.

Doesn't change the essence of your point, fishermen are relatively low-paid, but it's a claim you've made repeatedly now.

Re the citizens' income thingy, right-wing-nutcase-economist* Milton Friedman wanted a reverse income tax up to about $10k a year, just to make sure everyone had enough to live on.








*only sometimes; nobody but nobody gets misunderstood like an economist, although he did spout some shite on occasion.

Tumsup, d'oh! I really thought you meant it. :D Although I did think it was pretty strange, but then some people actually do like the way Marx wrote. I suppose some bits of the Manifesto aren't so bad...

SWL, maybe if you factor injuries in as well as death? (Just a guess.)

Thanks for that, SWL. I *was* going on what I remembered of HSE figures - but I can't find them on their site. I suspect their various directorates count in different ways.

On Marx...Francis Wheen suggests that he was the original post-Modernist writer and that his work is *ironically* unreadable. I'm...unconvinced.