Hacker News Reader

Comment by wobbleblob | Hacker News Reader

> they are ideologically opposed to a fairly paid society.

The problem is that there isn't one universal definition of fair. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, they generally all (with individual exceptions of course) want a society that is fair, but with different, mutually incompatible definitions of fair.

Conservatives tend to preach that in a fair society, everyone gets what they deserve. Harder working, more talented? Then you deserve more. Socialists tend to preach that in a fair society, everyone gets what they need.

The group who need the most doesn't overlap with the group who is most talented and able to work hard, so conservatives and socialists will never agree on what is fair, or even that the other group believes in fairness.

View on HN

Great comment! Just to add:

The definition of fairness is subject to research under the name equity theory [0]

The three extremes are (AFAIR):

- equal distribution

- distribution proportional to contribution

- distribution proportional to need

The problem with extreme 1 and 3 is that they provide no incentive to increase your contribution which is why "capitalism" is superior to "socialism" in terms of productivity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory

Well, looking at the status quo the distribution of wealth in the current economy is not following Any of the definitions.

Right now wealth is distributed according to your rank. Rank unfortunately is nowhere near proportional to contribution.

The current system isn't perfect but in a market economy, new entrants challenge incumbents with systems that better tap the talents of the labor pool.

You are free to design your own incentive system and compete with those you believe rely too much on rank.

That's the issue. Leaving people free to do what they want does not produce a system that is fair or stable.

Then again the alternative isn't too pretty either.

> The problem with extreme 1 and 3 is that they provide no incentive to increase your contribution which is why "capitalism" is superior to "socialism" in terms of productivity.

That may be true under normal circumstances (you will likely see overall productivity drop once the poor start to starve or freeze to death) but that still leaves the fundamental disagreement whether overall productivity is more important than meeting everyone's needs.

Even the starving and freezing should want maximum productivity at the providers of food and heating.

What they want at that time is food and fuel. If your children are starving, and someone else's aren't, any belief in fairness collapses. Crime and revolution are the result.

By all counts, global poverty has fallen dramatically due to market economies and globalization. Your hyperbole is unnecessary.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill...

I don't remember using any hyperbole, but you are using it.

Has global poverty dropped due to unchecked free market capitalism? Is there a place where such a thing is applied?

Last 20 years:

Global shift from centrally controlled economies to more free market economies -> fewer people that are poor -> fewer people that are starving or freezing to death

I get the impression that you have strong ideals, and that you need me to agree that the other side isn't just wrong, but (quoting my own post higher up):

> will never agree (...) that the other group believes in fairness.

This is how a political gridlock develops, how wars start. Who is going to negotiate with a side that doesn't even want to be fair? I know I wouldn't, it would be pointless.

If you guys want to play the definition game, then we need to have an honest discussion on the definition of "contribution" and "deserve".

Gold is rarer, than oxygen and carbon. The market prices it higher. Does that mean it contributes more? Is gold more important than oxygen and carbon?

Sure, there needs to be an incentive to work hard. But there shouldn't be an incentive to being born in the lucky circumstances that leads you to becoming a surgeon, or the even luckier and more exclusive circumstances that lead you to becoming a CEO (white, male, relatively privileged). And why does a CEO who works hard 80 hours a week deserve more than a janitor working 3 jobs 80 hours a week just to keep her family afloat, to get her kid enough food and a safe place and help her get through the crappy public school that the CEO pays $30-60k a year (multiples of the janitor's salary) to keep his kid out of?

There shouldn't be an incentive to treat people as commodities. Does a surgeon deserve twice as much if for whatever reason there are half the number of surgeons this decade compared to last? Does a janitor deserve half the pay just because the birthrate increased and there are twice as many people to compete against? (I'm simplifying. It's not important whether doubling the supply halves the price.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com