flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....


Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "


What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is
worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted
NO such power to the federal government.


Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ?


Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal
outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted
god like powers to make such a determination.

Let's just cut straight to a trivial example. If person A works but
person B chooses not to is it 'fair' they receive the same income,
especially when the only way is to take it away from person A who did
the work?

If you want to use the 'effort of labor' argument then that doesn't
hold water either. Like, if person A expends a boat load of effort and
labor making a piece of junk it is 'fair' he receive the same income
as someone who makes things that work? If you say yes then *you* go
buy the piece of junk so he has an 'income'.


Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling.


In the first place that's rhetorical B.S. The poor have not 'gotten
poorer' and the middle class is always 'struggling'. It's called
"working."

Let's take another 'fairness' example. Say a company has decided to
pass out raises to it's employees. What's the 'fair' way to do it? How
about just giving everyone a 10% raise? Is that 'fair'? Let's see.

If person A is making a wage of 1 and person B is making a wage of 5
then there's a 'wage gap' of 4. After the 'equal' 10% raise the wages
are 1.1 and 5.5 for a 'wage gap' of 4.4. Oh, no. We have an
'increasing income gap'. But they both received what is arguably a
'fair' raise.

So you tell me why it would be 'fair' for the lower income person to
get all the raise just to 'narrow the income gap'? Did the other
worker do nothing toward increased profits?


Is that fair ?


You'd have to first define the meaning of "fair." What's 'unfair'
about it?

Let's make another example. Say a repair man fixes your toaster for
what you consider a 'fair price'. He fixes your neighbor's toaster for
the same "fair price' and they're happy with it too. All is 'fair'.

Now he discovers a way to do it a million times faster, fixes a
million toasters for the same 'fair price', and becomes rich. Now, all
of a sudden, it isn't fair? Why? It's the same 'fair price' you were
happy with before.

Actually, what happens in the real world is he is able to fix them for
a third of the previous 'fair price', so you're ahead of the game, and
gets 'rich' to boot but, even being better off, you're still ****ed
he's 'rich'.



Graham
Well, your arguements are too logical and reasonable - therefore ARE
NOT FAIR.