|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
In this completely different situation, A can earn £3m/year, and B can earn £30k/year. What they can produce is what they deserve. B does not have a claim to what A is earning.
So what if B gets out of the hospital and gets hit by lightening. Now he can barely afford to pay his first bill and has to sell his house to pay his second one. Meanwhile A is living the high life and sleeping with supermodels. Tough shit?
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
your first inclination is to define B as a victim.
If every time I point out an inequality arising through no fault of a person's own, you call that defining them as a victim as if that's some artificial construct I've come up with, then you must believe there is no such thing as good or bad luck in terms of people's salaries.
Further, if B had any kind of bad luck that caused him to have a lower earning potential than A, all other things being equal in terms of talent, abilities, hard work, etc., then what difference does it make what you label that? It's bad luck and has nothing to do with 'deserving' anything.
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
And of course I have sympathy for your perspective. I just think it's better for everyone, on average, if that perspective is not the one that's used as the basis for policy.
Ok, fair enough.
|
Reply With Quote