On Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 09:32:34 (-0500) Ellen Frank writes:
>But shouldn't living standards be determined by
>what people contribute? And shouldn't people who
>contribute more get more? Rather than being
>penalized for their hard work and success?
So you are saying Ken Lay deserves what he gets and the janitors that
clean his office deserve what they get, even if the janitors "work
hard" and don't "succeed"?
Why can't one believe that remuneration _should_ be related to contribution without believing that the existing distribution of wealth and income reflects the operation of this principle? Isn't that in part the moral charge of the labor theory of value, or of the point behind it, that capitalists as such in fact contributre nothing, and that all value is due to the contribution of labor? One may well think so, and think as well that Ken Lay does not reciprocate, and contributes nothing.We;ve had this discussion in the context of socialism, where I and a few others have held out for the proposition that even without class exploitation, there are good reasons to tie rumeration to contribution, because it is individually exploitative to expect others to support you if you dot reciprocate.This need not be a matter of desert, or desert alone. One might think it provides bad incentives by encouraging parasitism and laziness. jks
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
