" wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:

My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion
is that more income equality would benefit our society.

I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.

There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?

Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for
others, even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the
world without breaking a sweat?

Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).

No, simply a dumb idea. Why do you want the government, or any third
party, to get between an employer and employee (both assumed to be
adults). Can't we just let employers and employees decide for
themselves? ...or is that too much like freedom?

I would like to reward effort and capabilities/knowledge. Not the tricks
used to get up to a certain level. The Peter Principle has been observed
.... Now do we keep giving Peter "merit" increases (ie increases over the
change in cost of living)?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid