How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

I took it as meaning equal effort = equal income. But then I'm a simple soul.

O.K. thanks carolt. It can be difficult to judge effort, although I agree the sentiment that the current capitalist system is too unequal, those doing 'favours' for the rich and powerful are usually unfairly rewarded.

Pobby

I do a middle man thing. I am pretty experienced in a field of technology. Well nearly 40 years at it. Basically I get customers for importers/ producers. I receive a commission on each sale. Now back in the pre recession days I could receive about £180 a day just by business traffic. Just keep gathering in customers. Reaping the traffic. OK admit I do have expertise at this but it is hardly important.

On the other hand, my wife, having been in computers for many years, hated the office and is a visiting care person. Totally a very important job. Many people rely on her and she is very loved for it.

Awful wages, awful car allowance, the car we provide. Dreadful hours. Now which job is important. Mine or hers. Hey, ho, capitalism. Don`t you just love it.

Pobby

I guess it where the values are. Also where the money is spent. I have no problems with decent employers. As a kid in my 20`s I worked for a great dude. Had a very good small business and paid very well. So much so, I forgot holidays, just loved the job. He made plenty of money but paid his hard working staff very well.

Esther_McVittie

How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

Because they're worth it

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

So...am I to assume that (a) you're in the wrong party, (b) you're lying or just very confused or (c) that the only difference between the left and the right is that those on the left are intrinsically more hopeful and optimistic that what ought to be can be?

Bear in mind, I did put a rider, of liking lots of things that aren't likely...

So if any, I'm hoping it's (c). But building economic policy on optimism seems to me to consign people to disappointment (as well as castigating, and calling spoil-sports, those who want to be realistic). I think it's also worth noting that incumbancy, and the Sir Humphreys, are probably the greatest squashers of optimism. Another argument for a small state, by the way....

lynzpower

nickmason wrote: »

Bear in mind, I did put a rider, of liking lots of things that aren't likely...

So if any, I'm hoping it's (c). But building economic policy on optimism seems to me to consign people to disappointment (as well as castigating, and calling spoil-sports, those who want to be realistic). I think it's also worth noting that incumbancy, and the Sir Humphreys, are probably the greatest squashers of optimism. Another argument for a small state, by the way....

What do you mean by small state? What do you want to see reduced.

I see lots of people calling for the reduction of the state in terms of "quangos"

Is this what you mean ?

nickmason

Malcolm. wrote: »

I'd like work to equal income

I do not know what that phrase means.

Everyone works for the same wage?

People are paid equally whether they work intelligently or not?

Perhaps some bright spark could explain it to me.

I was being deliberately abstract (although to be fair it was Carolt who coined it) - I think as a principle it stacks up - indeed it seems to be "fair". But as per my previous post, fairness doesn't exist - and almost certainly can't. It will always be contaminated by unfairness, as people want and value different things. The closest we get to balancing that out is probably a market.

lynzpower

nickmason wrote: »

I was being deliberately abstract (although to be fair it was Carolt who coined it) - I think as a principle it stacks up - indeed it seems to be "fair". But as per my previous post, fairness doesn't exist - and almost certainly can't. It will always be contaminated by unfairness, as people want and value different things. The closest we get to balancing that out is probably a market.

That is absolutley not true. A pure market will never invoke fairness thats why we have to manage that market to give human and other rights to people.

Protection from Eviction act is a good example of this.

A market is more likely to be contaminated by unfairness from the greed that market encourages which is why we have to manage it.

nickmason

lynzpower wrote: »

What do you mean by small state? What do you want to see reduced.

I see lots of people calling for the reduction of the state in terms of "quangos"

Is this what you mean ?

I thought this might need clarifying. I'm not referring specifically to quangos etc, although I do have an issue with their lack of direct accountability, and - related - propensity to spiral out of control.

Nor did I mean state employees per se, like teachers, nurses etc.

As best I can describe, I am referring to the nexus between the civil service itself and the body of legislation that makes up our legal framework/constitution.

I mean that a "collective management body", such as the civil service, even if takes orders from the government of the day, acts as a brake on dreams and ambitions of citizens. Sometimes it does so correctly and legitimately - for instance by having specialists who have learnt the errors of the past and look to ensure they are not repeated. Some of the brains in the civil service are of the highest order (some of course are not), and some of the hearts, likewise.

But - the truth behind why "Yes Minister" was so brutally brilliant - the existence of this body wrests control from people, included their elected representatives. They either "shut doors", suppressing the wishes of the people, or "open doors", presuming to act for the people. When they are not. Again none of these things are black and white - there are civil servants who manage to increase the governmental options available to people, so that the benefit of the "open door" outweighs the fact it wasn't requested by the people. My view, and it can only be a view as it can't be proven either way, is that this is rare.

Of course, the civil service are necessary - you do need someone to enact the wishes of the people and their elected representatives and government. And so therefore they are a necessary evil - a democratic drag if you like. But reducing their activity reduces that democratic drag; and the way to reduce their activity is to reduce the framework of the state - to recognise that every new law carries not just potential delivery burdens (and almost certain change and implementation costs) but also takes power away from the people.

Enough "philosophy". In twelve months, the government produced 3,621 pieces of legislation, running to 98,600 pages. No-one can know all of that; and if they did, it'd be - at least in part - redundant in the next 12 months. To have a country, with legislation so complicated that no-one knows what you can do, seems to me to be a pretty good way to squash optimism.

nickmason

lynzpower wrote: »

That is absolutley not true. A pure market will never invoke fairness thats why we have to manage that market to give human and other rights to people.

Protection from Eviction act is a good example of this.

A market is more likely to be contaminated by unfairness from the greed that market encourages which is why we have to manage it.

The point is that - particularly in a society as complex as ours - the idea that we can find some fair utopia is bonkers. So any solution can be shot down. And I agree markets fail. I do agree we need to manage the market. But I can't see any better way of divvying stuff up than allowing people to trade what they don't want for what they do.

This fairness thing is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - at the moment everybody is debunking the rainbow (economic/political environment) because they can't find the pot of gold (perfect fairness). It doesn't mean that some rainbows are a damned site more attractive than others. This is why "fair" is such a problematic (yet politically enticing and seductive) word. Far better to talk of more fair.