I'm not here talking about any sort of income inequality between men and women, but about income inequality in different types of job, and even between individuals working in the same kind of job. A complete equality of outcome for every single person is unreasonable and unjustified.
If you have a microscopically small community, say like 10 people at most, and it's some kind of completely self-sufficient independent agrarian community (like some kind of Amish style isolated community), then maybe, maybe, you could get away with absolute equality of "income" (although there wouldn't be any sort of "income" in the first place in such a community, because there would hardly be any need for money. But perhaps if we are talking about some form personal possessions.)
However, once a community starts being any larger than that, it just cannot exist unless different people in it have different tasks and responsibilities. In other words, different people have different jobs and assignments. The larger the community, the more numerous, diverse and specialized these different jobs will by necessity be. Once we get to millions of people, the typical population size of a country, the system gets extremely complex, unless it wants to face a total economic and social collapse and ruin.
Some jobs are much more complex than others, and require special education, training and experience. You can't just pick some guy at random to do that job. It needs to be someone who has been trained for that particular job. A random person simply cannot know how to do it, without any sort of training, education and experience. And since there are literally hundreds, and even thousands, of such specialized jobs, it's physically impossible for every person to learn all of them. Even becoming proficient at two of the most difficult jobs, while not impossible, can be too much to ask.
Some of these jobs are also more dangerous than others. They require extensive training, and a large amount of precautions to lessen the risk of injury and death, but they may still be dangerous even with all the precautions. With some jobs, the workers are literally risking their lives to do it (no matter how small the risk in practice might be thanks to the safety precautions).
Some jobs just outright require more talent and dedication than others. Let's face it: Not every single person is fit for a particular job. Even if you tried to teach and train that person, he or she might not be psychologically or physically suitable for it, or both. As politically incorrect as it may be to say, but let's be blunt here, but some jobs even require a certain degree of sheer intelligence and smarts, and not every single person is that smart.
The vast majority of jobs require organization. They require managers and leaders to organize people and hand them tasks, so that everybody knows what to do and when, so that they can collaborate efficiently. Without such organization, without people directing other people and managing the whole thing, large jobs would become a complete mess because nobody knows what they should be doing, where, and when. Some people are better suited for these leadership jobs, often because of talent and experience, and their managerial job is quite crucial to keep the whole thing running and working.
And, let's face it, some jobs are more important than others. Some jobs just have to be done, or else something crucial in a functioning society will just collapse, making it much harder for that society to exist and function. The vast majority of jobs contribute to a working society, of course, but some jobs are more crucial to it than others.
Given all these differences, is it wrong to reward people based on what kind of job they are doing?
If, for example, a very talented and experienced worker is greatly improving the quality of the products or services of a company, much more so than, and well beyond that of the average worker, is it wrong for the company to reward the contribution of this person with a higher salary? This person may be bringing a lot more money to the company than most of the other workers (who may still be doing a fine job, but this one worker is just greatly excelling them), so isn't it justified that his work and contribution is recompensed appropriately?
If a job is very dangerous and requires a great amount of training and experience, perhaps years and years of it, and the job is very important and crucial, is it wrong to incentivize people to do that job, and do it well, by rewarding them with a larger salary? If they would just be paid the same as a very safe and comfortable office job, that wouldn't be very incentivizing. Why would it be wrong to reward them for putting their health and safety at risk to keep society running?
Also, consider the people who are managing and leading others, organizing them so that they can all collaborate efficiently. Consider how important this role is. Without any sort of manager, somebody who takes care of the big picture, an organization or company simply couldn't work. Nobody would know what exactly to do or when. It would be a real hassle. (Maybe if the company consists of two or three workers, it could work without any sort of "boss". However, when it gets significantly larger than that, it starts quickly becoming a mess.) Given how crucial this position is, isn't it justified that it's also rewarded with a higher salary? Without this person running things, nothing would be running in the first place. Somebody needs to do this job.
The term "income inequality" has a negative sound to it, because of that word "inequality". However, it's completely justified, and even necessary.
I, for one, am not in any way, shape or form jealous of somebody more talented than me, or doing a much harder job than me, getting a larger salary than me. If he earns it, he deserves it, and I'm all for it.
If you have a microscopically small community, say like 10 people at most, and it's some kind of completely self-sufficient independent agrarian community (like some kind of Amish style isolated community), then maybe, maybe, you could get away with absolute equality of "income" (although there wouldn't be any sort of "income" in the first place in such a community, because there would hardly be any need for money. But perhaps if we are talking about some form personal possessions.)
However, once a community starts being any larger than that, it just cannot exist unless different people in it have different tasks and responsibilities. In other words, different people have different jobs and assignments. The larger the community, the more numerous, diverse and specialized these different jobs will by necessity be. Once we get to millions of people, the typical population size of a country, the system gets extremely complex, unless it wants to face a total economic and social collapse and ruin.
Some jobs are much more complex than others, and require special education, training and experience. You can't just pick some guy at random to do that job. It needs to be someone who has been trained for that particular job. A random person simply cannot know how to do it, without any sort of training, education and experience. And since there are literally hundreds, and even thousands, of such specialized jobs, it's physically impossible for every person to learn all of them. Even becoming proficient at two of the most difficult jobs, while not impossible, can be too much to ask.
Some of these jobs are also more dangerous than others. They require extensive training, and a large amount of precautions to lessen the risk of injury and death, but they may still be dangerous even with all the precautions. With some jobs, the workers are literally risking their lives to do it (no matter how small the risk in practice might be thanks to the safety precautions).
Some jobs just outright require more talent and dedication than others. Let's face it: Not every single person is fit for a particular job. Even if you tried to teach and train that person, he or she might not be psychologically or physically suitable for it, or both. As politically incorrect as it may be to say, but let's be blunt here, but some jobs even require a certain degree of sheer intelligence and smarts, and not every single person is that smart.
The vast majority of jobs require organization. They require managers and leaders to organize people and hand them tasks, so that everybody knows what to do and when, so that they can collaborate efficiently. Without such organization, without people directing other people and managing the whole thing, large jobs would become a complete mess because nobody knows what they should be doing, where, and when. Some people are better suited for these leadership jobs, often because of talent and experience, and their managerial job is quite crucial to keep the whole thing running and working.
And, let's face it, some jobs are more important than others. Some jobs just have to be done, or else something crucial in a functioning society will just collapse, making it much harder for that society to exist and function. The vast majority of jobs contribute to a working society, of course, but some jobs are more crucial to it than others.
Given all these differences, is it wrong to reward people based on what kind of job they are doing?
If, for example, a very talented and experienced worker is greatly improving the quality of the products or services of a company, much more so than, and well beyond that of the average worker, is it wrong for the company to reward the contribution of this person with a higher salary? This person may be bringing a lot more money to the company than most of the other workers (who may still be doing a fine job, but this one worker is just greatly excelling them), so isn't it justified that his work and contribution is recompensed appropriately?
If a job is very dangerous and requires a great amount of training and experience, perhaps years and years of it, and the job is very important and crucial, is it wrong to incentivize people to do that job, and do it well, by rewarding them with a larger salary? If they would just be paid the same as a very safe and comfortable office job, that wouldn't be very incentivizing. Why would it be wrong to reward them for putting their health and safety at risk to keep society running?
Also, consider the people who are managing and leading others, organizing them so that they can all collaborate efficiently. Consider how important this role is. Without any sort of manager, somebody who takes care of the big picture, an organization or company simply couldn't work. Nobody would know what exactly to do or when. It would be a real hassle. (Maybe if the company consists of two or three workers, it could work without any sort of "boss". However, when it gets significantly larger than that, it starts quickly becoming a mess.) Given how crucial this position is, isn't it justified that it's also rewarded with a higher salary? Without this person running things, nothing would be running in the first place. Somebody needs to do this job.
The term "income inequality" has a negative sound to it, because of that word "inequality". However, it's completely justified, and even necessary.
I, for one, am not in any way, shape or form jealous of somebody more talented than me, or doing a much harder job than me, getting a larger salary than me. If he earns it, he deserves it, and I'm all for it.
Comments
Post a Comment