Ok. I gotta know: the morality of disequal pay for equal work effort

[Rumor_Watkins]

Ok, before proceeding, understand this: this is not some communist diatribe regarding “equal work for equal pay”. There are many good reasons why such a system is untenable and unwarranted. I repeat: this is not some “therefore communism is better” thread

That said

Assumption #1: that you can make everyone work, from birth, at a maximal level - and that everyone is made to do so.
Assumption #2: that there is a way to monitor and ensure that everyone is exerting maximum effort
Assumption #3: All other vestiges of our capitalist, market-based economy exist.
If everyone is working as hard as they can, is there any moral justification (or any other justification) to a society where some people’s maximal effort is rewarded at a higher degree than others?

This difference in reward can come about from any other reason, mind you, with the exception of one: work effort. Anything else you can name flies: mental retardation, physical disability, prejudice, innate biological superiority/inferiority, superior/inferior intelligence, an incident in life that hampers one’s life in any way, winning the lottery, socioeconomic upbringing, etc.

So every other justification for “reward disparity” is acceptable, except for those that are, at their heart, based in the notion that someone is not working as hard as another (so some claptrap like “well work effort in that they both show up for 8 hours a day is equal, but maybe they don’t work as hard during those 8 hours” are not acceptable; everyone works equally hard in this scenario)

Do we live in a just society? A righteous society?

If we do, why?
If we do not, why?

Again, I do not need to hear from posters saying “your hypo is bullshit - this isn’t realistic, bla bla bla”. I’m asking if you would feel a society that rewards its members differently because of something other than work effort is correct.

Thank you.

[athelas]

What kind of work? Some fields of work require long and difficult education before you enter the workforce; does a newly-minted lawyer make the same as a ditch-digger that required no education?

How is the “fun” work doled out? Are journalists paid the same amount as people who clean out toilets? What about journalists that cover dull town council meetings vs. those exposing political scandals? What about the sports writers?

[John_Mace]

The same reason as now. Person A values the work output of Person B more than he values the output of Person C. I don’t care how hard someone works-- I care whether I want they make or not, and how much I want it compared to something else.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@athelas

What kind of work? Some fields of work require long and difficult education before you enter the workforce; does a newly-minted lawyer make the same as a ditch-digger that required no education?

How is the “fun” work doled out? Are journalists paid the same amount as people who clean out toilets? What about journalists that cover dull town council meetings vs. those exposing political scandals? What about the sports writers?

all work. work is “doled” out according to how it’s doled out now - the employer decides. education acts as the first filter, desire/interest acts as the second, and that probably accounts for 95% of job-path selecting.

[athelas]

In that case your world is decidedly unequal in every way except money. The student who busted his ass to get through med school gets the same pay as the class clown who partied his way through college, and the prestigious journalist gets a lot more social status and street cred than an accountant. For some reason redistributionists are blind to all the social goodies, such as status, job security, and fun, that cannot be redistributed.

Of course this world is unstable and would quickly collapse, with everyone rushing to take the low-education, high-status, cushy jobs. You’ll soon end up with people bribing their way into professions or relying on family connections, ending up with a much more stratified and inegalitarian society than we have now.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@athelas

In that case your world is decidedly unequal in every way except money. The student who busted his ass to get through med school gets the same pay as the class clown who partied his way through college, and the prestigious journalist gets a lot more social status and street cred than an accountant. For some reason redistributionists are blind to all the social goodies, such as status, job security, and fun, that cannot be redistributed.

Of course this world is unstable and would quickly collapse, with everyone rushing to take the low-education, high-status, cushy jobs. You’ll soon end up with people bribing their way into professions or relying on family connections, ending up with a much more stratified and inegalitarian society than we have now.

no, i’m not demanding that they receive equal pay at all. in fact, i’m allowing for pay disparities based on anything but work effort. if doctors receive more than a ditch digger because of whatever, that’s fine.

i’m asking if we would be living in a just society, though.

[John_Mace]

Where do you get the idea that pay is “doled out” by how much effort a person puts in? It’s output that matters, not input. There’s nothing immoral about paying someone what they are worth. If someone works hard producing junk, I’m not going to pay him the same amount I’d pay someone who produces quality, useful products.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@John_Mace

Where do you get the idea that pay is “doled out” by how much effort a person puts in? It’s output that matters, not input. There’s nothing immoral about paying someone what they are worth. If someone works hard producing junk, I’m not going to pay him the same amount I’d pay someone who produces quality, useful products.

again, i am not claiming equal pay AT ALL.

this system pays according to any reasons that system wants - presumably it would be based on market forces, as i specified that the extant market-based system still continues to operate.

[athelas]

Well in that case yes, it is perfectly moral for there to be inequalities of pay for the reasons I said above.

[Jerseyman]

Socialism would reward work according to its usefulness and possibly Communism according to the effort put into it. Capitalism and Feudalism and Slavery reward according to how high up the scale, the less work you do the more money you get from those who make the effort and the less they get for it. Present post-Capitalism has developed gambling other people’s money to make one’s own money and anybody who thinks recent events have shown this a failure needs to learn the difference between corporate finances and those of the individuals running the corporation: first you award millions in bonusses all round then you declare the company insolvent and twist the government’s arm with millions of individuals bankrupted and deprived of a job unless they pay the deficit you created. The moment they do, the first thing you do is to award yourself six and seven figure bonusses and tell the public that it is proof you have not been ‘socialised’.

The ideal would be a world where nobody is forced to work all their life for others, but a mixture of automation and conscription would provide the basics for all to live on and then any more could be because you want to do it, whether profitable or not, either individually or as small co-operatives. See Kim Stanley Robinson’s ‘Mars’ political sci-fi.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@athelas

Well in that case yes, it is perfectly moral for there to be inequalities of pay for the reasons I said above.

so it’s moral for some to be rich and some to be poor for reasons that aren’t within the individual’s control?

[StaudtCJ]

With your postulations in place, I would use the analogy of a factory to illustrate why I am against.

Person A is working as hard and as well as they possibly can, and makes 15 widgets an hour. Person B is working as hard and as well as they possibly can, and makes 25 widgets an hour. Person A and person B have the same education, etc. I think that Person B should have the opportunity to negotiate for higher pay, because the factory is making more money with his/her work per hour by selling more widgets. So despite both individuals are putting forth maximum effort, one is more EFFECTIVE. Being more effective should be rewarded. If the more effective person isn’t rewarded, why wouldn’t that person, being a normal human being, be upset that if he reduced his output to 15 widgets, he’d be docked in pay.

Under your system, if two individuals were hired to run a mile for courier duty, the one that ran in 20 mins, because that was as fast as he could go, and he tried his best, would be paid the same as the one who ran in 6 mins. Not only would I not pay them the same, I’d probably replace the slower individual with a faster individual.

[Indistinguishable]

@Rumor_Watkins

so it’s moral for some to be rich and some to be poor for reasons that aren’t within the individual’s control?

As much as it’s moral for some to be very smart/athletic/productive/whatever and some to be mentally retarded/physically disabled/incompetent/whatever for reasons that aren’t within the individual’s control.

If these differences didn’t exist, it would be “unfair”, I suppose, to capriciously pay some differently from others. But your hypothetical specifically imposes these differences.

Incidentally, I’d hate to live in a world where I was forced to toil at maximal effort all the time. I value my ability to relax.

[athelas]

@Rumor_Watkins

so it’s moral for some to be rich and some to be poor for reasons that aren’t within the individual’s control?

In many ways the reasons are under control; for example the med student who has to work harder in school to become a doctor when he could party and become a ditch-digger. There is a much better case that it is immoral for him not to be compensated for this effort. Again you have to think about non-monetary job requirements and benefits that cannot be redistributed.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Indistinguishable

As much as it’s moral for some to be very smart/athletic/productive/whatever and some to be mentally retarded/physically disabled/incompetent/whatever for reasons that aren’t within the individual’s control.

If these differences didn’t exist, it would be “unfair”, I suppose, to capriciously pay some differently from others. But your hypothetical specifically imposes these differences.

my hypo doesn’t impose those differences, it merely asks if it’s just to have a society where people are paid differently for things that they largely have no control over

and your first paragraph is interesting - so it’s moral to live in a society where some are discriminated upon by virtue of race or sex?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@athelas

In many ways the reasons are under control; for example the med student who has to work harder in school to become a doctor when he could party and become a ditch-digger. There is a much better case that it is immoral for him not to be compensated for this effort. Again you have to think about non-monetary job requirements and benefits that cannot be redistributed.

no, he can’t party and be a ditch digger - if he’s got time to party he’s not exerting maximal effort.

stop trying to read laze into my society, please; i recognize that that’s the answer you may tell yourself to resolve the issue, but it’s just not possible in my scenario.

[Indistinguishable]

@Rumor_Watkins

my hypo doesn’t impose those differences, it merely asks if it’s just to have a society where people are paid differently for things that they largely have no control over

and your first paragraph is interesting - so it’s moral to live in a society where some are discriminated upon by virtue of race or sex?

Where did I say anything about race or sex? My position is basically the same as John Mace’s; in evaluating how much I would be willing to pay an employee, I don’t care how much effort they put in, I only care how much output they yield. I suppose, in a very different kind of world, I might be led to use different criteria, but there would have to be good reason.

However, a world where people are forced to toil maximally against their will is so hellish and disastrous that it hardly matters how much people get nominally paid. What’re they going to do with that money beyond purchasing the basic requirements to live? Anyone who takes any leisure time off is not toiling maximally. Or could you purchase a vacation if you liked? Apparently, you’re not allowed to ever party. I’d do anything to get the hell out of there. Toil is discomfort; I don’t want to experience maximal discomfort. I want to experience maximal comfort.

[athelas]

In that case what about high status vs. low status jobs? Even a low-paid chief executive has more power than accountants, and football players will still get the girls.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Indistinguishable

Where did I say anything about race or sex? My position is basically the same as John Mace’s; in evaluating how much I would be willing to pay an employee, I don’t care how much effort they put in, I only care how much output they yield. I suppose, in a very different kind of world, I might be led to use different criteria, but there would have to be good reason.

Please stop taking the perspective of an employer - I’m not asking you to decide how much to pay these people. I don’t care how much you think they’re worth, or how much you’d pay

I’m asking if you were a member of this society, writ large, would you feel it was a just society?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@athelas

In that case what about high status vs. low status jobs? Even a low-paid chief executive has more power than accountants, and football players will still get the girls.

And I take no umbrage with that. Unless you feel that that’s a vital component of what is a “just” society?