tolerating unequal outcomes

[kermit]

To the extent to which government law, regulation or action is responsible for discrimination, there almost certainly has to be a government remedy. But if I dont want to hire women, or blacks, or jews, or whites, or italians or Christians or Muslims or people with blue eyes, that is my business, not younrs and not the states. So long as I am not violating anyones rights, the state has no moral authority to step in and use initiate the use of force against me.

Discriminatory hiring practices is a crime.

Long before it was a crime it was was concidered to be a business ethics violation.

Good business ethics are good business practices. I have seen many small companies fail due to poor business practices driven by poor business ethics.

 

[bricklayer]

You realize, of course, that you use the term "outcome" to mean different, unrelated concepts. One meaning of outcome you refer to is income. That is the "outcome" of one's effort, but later, when you talk about "producing outcomes", you are not talking about income, rather than result in their work.

Being able to produce a good "outcome" (i.e. product) is not necessarily correlated with yielding a good "outcome" (i.e. income). There are often some correlation within a specific job level/title, but the disparity between job level/titles is wholly not correlated with performance.

I have a high tolerance for unequal outcomes.

I have a low tolerance for a system that is driven by outcomes that don't accurately reflect one's inputs.

Nothing distorts the information in a price like government.

You have come the closest to what I a left to believe.

It is remarkable how consistently everyone else considers quality outcomes as something relative to other people's outcomes.

Taxes are not a moral issue, and equal outcomes are not a moral goal.

 

[lordbt]

I'm sure you disagree, but a lot of people see exclusion as a form of harm. If harm is unethical, then exclusion is unethical. Again, I understand you'll disagree that exclusion is form of harm. I think the person to ask in this case would be the excluded person.

My position is that since you have no right to work for me in the first place, I am not violating your rights by not hiring you. And if I am not violating your rights, the state has no right to interceed on your behalf.

Of course you're ignoring that when industrialists gain enough power, the industrialists become the state.

I am not ignoring it, I just dont see evidence for it. But if you are arguing that the state is corrupt and corruptable, you wont get disagreement from me.

This is why most of us are committed to democracy - so that if somebody overreaches, we have the means to peacefully remove that person.

And if the mob overreaches?

I like having this option over people to whom society grants power. Unfortunately I don't have this same choice when it comes to who has power derived through wealth.

In other words you want control. If you cant gain it through honest means, you seek to use force. I get that.

Wealth and society are tied together. A billionaire doesn't have his fortune without infrastructure, laws and especially the hard work of others. To me it seems natural that if a person reaps rewards from a society, then society has a right to ask for something in return. This isn't coercion, it's a mutually beneficial trade or reciprocity.

No, its coersion and you advocating force to relieve others of property that rightfully belongs to them so you can use it for your own ends is theft.

What if 50% of people died in their childhood due to malnourishment and disease while wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few individuals? I'm not saying this will happen with libertarianism, I'm merely asking at what point would inequality in distribution start to rub you the wrong way?

I have yet to run across a reasonable scenario (which yours isnt) that has wekened my support for human liberty or individual rights.

Also, don't make this about envy. This is about recognizing that there are groups in society that work very hard and get very little, or want to work but can't. You don't need to be in the disenfranchised group to recognize that this exists.

Its about envy and really nothing more. You see people with more than you think theys should have so you elect into power people who will take it from them and transfer it to you.

 

[lordbt]

Discriminatory hiring practices is a crime.

No kidding. This discussion is about whether or not it should be.

Good business ethics are good business practices. I have seen many small companies fail due to poor business practices driven by poor business ethics.

Then it shouldnt bother you if someone refuses to hire liberals, because if it is such a bad business practice the company will fail.

 

[kermit]

No kidding. This discussion is about whether or not it should be.

Nope. Read the OP.

Then it shouldnt bother you if someone refuses to hire liberals, because if it is such a bad business practice the company will fail.

I oppose poor business practices. They only serve to hurt all of the stakeholders of a business.

 

[variant]

Just so you know, it was 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the 'government puting the hammer down' in the form of Civil Rights legislation. It must be that sort of speedy action that keeps your love affair with the state alive.

That period started with the era of "hands off" government that you are so in love with, the gilded age. Where the government was philosophically opposed to dealing with social problems.

After the industrial revolution and the gilded age gave us governments that were more pro-active in social change which eventually lead to taking action to deal with it.

What you suggest is to remove those sorts of ideas from our discussion because the governments that you like better (the hands off model) were not quick to deal with massive social problems.

I was actually hoping for something within the last two hundred years.

The system emanates from over two hundred years ago but it was in effect in the 1900's

If you don't like or do not wish to argue the example I can find you some more examples of private interests economically coercing people.

I want to hear the libertarian argument against this, how it is fixed in the free market system with no government coercion.

And prior to the Guilded Age there was no poverty and no slums? Its amazing the things you can learn in internet exchanges.

Not to the same effect no. The industrial revolution happening with hands off government (better suited to an agricultural economy) caused these problems to explode.

The grand majority of people are not set up to fail in a free society.

Well you can say whatever you want, but I don't see how we are supposed to make sure the power that comes from wealth is not overly abused.

In our free society no, but in your ideal society that is the logical conclusion.

When we take all checks off of any kind of power, t is going to be used to coerce others. You, unintentionally, want to take all checks off of the accumulation of the power of wealth.

We already agree that government is dangerous when we do not check it's power, what I can't seem to convince you of is that economic power happens to have similar problems.

Nice rhetorical finish, but meaningless.

I didn't know you had veto power on the meaning of what others say.

 

[whatbogsends]

Its about envy and really nothing more. You see people with more than you think theys should have so you elect into power people who will take it from them and transfer it to you.

For the umpteenth time, you are absolutely wrong on this. When i advocate less wage inequality, i'm not advocating anything that helps my position. I see the hard-working poor getting taken advantage of, and it is they who i am advocating for. I am in the top 5% (at least from an income perspective - due to my age, i'm probably only in the top 10-20% wealth-wise, but continuing to climb). I'm quite content with what I have. What i am not content with is the exploitation of labor, which is systematic in America.

I've worked factory jobs when i was younger. I saw people who worked harder than most receive very little compensation. I've interacted with the wealthy, and have found that for the most part, they possess don't possess any ability, or produce any outcome, that justifies their excessive wages.

Are there those who exploit welfare? Absolutely. Are there those who have achieved wealth due to their innovation and productivity? Absolutely. From what i've seen, these tend to be the exceptions to the rule, not the norm.

Yes, the welfare system is in serious need of reform. More work and training programs and less handouts would yield a better solution.

You bemoan the evils of government while giving big business a free pass, when government and big business collude to thrive off of other people's labor, while pointing the finger at the poor, despite the poor being used for the financial benefit of the wealthy.

It is empathy, not envy, which pushes me (and many of my liberal brethren) to my conclusions.

 

[MachZer0]

For the umpteenth time, you are absolutely wrong on this. When i advocate less wage inequality, i'm not advocating anything that helps my position. I see the hard-working poor getting taken advantage of, and it is they who i am advocating for. I am in the top 5% (at least from an income perspective - due to my age, i'm probably only in the top 10-20% wealth-wise, but continuing to climb). I'm quite content with what I have. What i am not content with is the exploitation of labor, which is systematic in America.

I've worked factory jobs when i was younger. I saw people who worked harder than most receive very little compensation. I've interacted with the wealthy, and have found that for the most part, they possess don't possess any ability, or produce any outcome, that justifies their excessive wages.

Are there those who exploit welfare? Absolutely. Are there those who have achieved wealth due to their innovation and productivity? Absolutely. From what i've seen, these tend to be the exceptions to the rule, not the norm.

Yes, the welfare system is in serious need of reform. More work and training programs and less handouts would yield a better solution.

You bemoan the evils of government while giving big business a free pass, when government and big business collude to thrive off of other people's labor, while pointing the finger at the poor, despite the poor being used for the financial benefit of the wealthy.

It is empathy, not envy, which pushes me (and many of my liberal brethren) to my conclusions.

Then why not find someone in lesser circumstances and give them a portion of your earnings or transfer a portion of your wealth to them. Then they will be happy and you should be happy as well.

 

[whatbogsends]

Then why not find someone in lesser circumstances and give them a portion of your earnings or transfer a portion of your wealth to them. Then they will be happy and you should be happy as well.

As usual, your "solution" misses the mark entirely.

I (as i would imagine many in my economic position do) donate to charity as well as provide financial support for groups that i support. However, one person making a change by "giving someone a portion of their earnings" doesn't significantly alter the financial/societal landscape, as the problem is systematic. It makes much more sense to try to effect a systematic change, even if that systematic change negatively impacts me personally.

 

[lordbt]

That period started with the era of "hands off" government that you are so in love with, the gilded age. Where the government was philosophically opposed to dealing with social problems.

Actually, that hands off policy preceeded the Guilded Age by about 100 years.

After the industrial revolution and the gilded age gave us governments that were more pro-active in social change which eventually lead to taking action to deal with it.

What you suggest is to remove those sorts of ideas from our discussion because the governments that you like better (the hands off model) were not quick to deal with massive social problems.

The Guilded Age did not create poverty and human suffering, those were general conditions of mankind dating back to the dawn of time. What the Guilded Age did was show what sort of unimaginable wealth was possible in a free market system. That some could live in guilded castles while others lived in slums was , and is, just too much for the envious left to bear.

The system emanates from over two hundred years ago but it was in effect in the 1900's

If you don't like or do not wish to argue the example I can find you some more examples of private interests economically coercing people.

I want to hear the libertarian argument against this, how it is fixed in the free market system with no government coercion.

Give me a modern example and I will discuss it with you.

Not to the same effect no. The industrial revolution happening with hands off government (better suited to an agricultural economy) caused these problems to explode.

Nonsense. If people were so well off prior to the industrial revolution, from where did those evil industrialists acquire their labor? And what sort of parents sent their children off to work in a dismal factory from dawn til dusk if things were all smiles and sunshine? That people flocked to factories with their long hours (by our standards), low pay (by our standards) and dismal working conditions (by our standards) is evidence enough to me that the alternative was far worse. So like it or not, the industrial revolution and the Guilded Age improved the lives of Americans immeasurably, but all you see is that someone got to live in a nice house.

Well you can say whatever you want, but I don't see how we are supposed to make sure the power that comes from wealth is not overly abused.

And
you can say whatever you want, but I don't see how we are supposed to make sure the power that comes from the state is not overly abused. In a free market, you can move on to other lines of work if you feel you are being treated unfairly by your mean employer. But when the state has free reign to trample your rights, you have nowhere to run.

In our free society no, but in your ideal society that is the logical conclusion.

No, thats your conclusion, not the logical one.

When we take all checks off of any kind of power, t is going to be used to coerce others. You, unintentionally, want to take all checks off of the accumulation of the power of wealth.

We already agree that government is dangerous when we do not check it's power, what I can't seem to convince you of is that economic power happens to have similar problems.

If my employer exerts too much economic power over me I quit and work elsewhere.

I didn't know you had veto power on the meaning of what others say.

So you are the only one allowed to exert power over others? How nice of you.

 

[Subdood]

For the umpteenth time, you are absolutely wrong on this. When i advocate less wage inequality, i'm not advocating anything that helps my position. I see the hard-working poor getting taken advantage of, and it is they who i am advocating for. I am in the top 5% (at least from an income perspective - due to my age, i'm probably only in the top 10-20% wealth-wise, but continuing to climb). I'm quite content with what I have. What i am not content with is the exploitation of labor, which is systematic in America.

I've worked factory jobs when i was younger. I saw people who worked harder than most receive very little compensation. I've interacted with the wealthy, and have found that for the most part, they possess don't possess any ability, or produce any outcome, that justifies their excessive wages.

Are there those who exploit welfare? Absolutely. Are there those who have achieved wealth due to their innovation and productivity? Absolutely. From what i've seen, these tend to be the exceptions to the rule, not the norm.

Yes, the welfare system is in serious need of reform. More work and training programs and less handouts would yield a better solution.

You bemoan the evils of government while giving big business a free pass, when government and big business collude to thrive off of other people's labor, while pointing the finger at the poor, despite the poor being used for the financial benefit of the wealthy.

It is empathy, not envy, which pushes me (and many of my liberal brethren) to my conclusions.

Ok, let's go with your assertion and assume it's empathy and not envy.

Does that make our conclusions "un"-empathetic?

You assert people are "taking advantage" of the hardworking poor, that people are getting wealthy "exploiting" them for their own financial benefit. I will admit you may feel empathy for the disparity in their earnings versus what others might earn. But the assertion that anyone is "taking advantage" of them, let alone "exploiting" them is hardly accurate, now is it?

I think you are confusing your empathy with someone else's envy. First, unless you are in the position of feeling your wages are inequitable compared to someone else's, you can't be in a position of envy. Yes, if you think the same of someone else's wages being inequitable with yet another's, that might be "empathy" - but with what are you "empathizing?" With what are you "sharing a deep emotional understanding?"

Put differently, how do you know the person for whose inequitable wages you feel such empathy feels themselves inequitably treated - except they voice their discontent? And if they voice such discontent, what is that if not ENVY - especially if the standard they use for feeling inequitably treated is someone else's wages? Again, how is that NOT envy?

Look, it's actually quite rare in this day and age, and in this nation that a person NOT be paid what they're worth. People may disagree about what their true worth is, wage-wise, but that's really not their call. They can negotiate, certainly, but in the end, it's the market that decides their worth, not some "evil wealthy person."

 

[lordbt]

It is empathy, not envy, which pushes me (and many of my liberal brethren) to my conclusions.

And that is supposed to be better? So we are left to argue over which particular emotion guides your actions. Reason should guide your actions, not emotions. There are plenty of rich and (supposedly) empathetic liberals out there, so why dont you all sell what you have and give it to the poor and create a great moral example for the rest of us greedy folk to follow? What gives you the right to empower the state to take what you want from others and have it redistributed as you see fit? Where is you empathy for the rights of your fellow (rich) man? Fresh out?

 

[Subdood]

And that is supposed to be better? So we are left to argue over which particular emotion guides your actions. Reason should guide your actions, not emotions. There are plenty of rich and (supposedly) empathetic liberals out there, so why dont you all sell what you have and give it to the poor and create a great moral example for the rest of us greedy folk to follow? What gives you the right to empower the state to take what you want from others and have it redistributed as you see fit? Where is you empathy for the rights of your fellow (rich) man? Fresh out?

...which of course is the problem - too many are being guided by their emotions rather than reason.

 

[whatbogsends]

And that is supposed to be better? So we are left to argue over which particular emotion guides your actions. Reason should guide your actions, not emotions. There are plenty of rich and (supposedly) empathetic liberals out there, so why dont you all sell what you have and give it to the poor and create a great moral example for the rest of us greedy folk to follow? What gives you the right to empower the state to take what you want from others and have it redistributed as you see fit? Where is you empathy for the rights of your fellow (rich) man? Fresh out?

Why are compassion, love, and kindness seen as good while greed, hatred, animosity, and meanness seen as bad?

Must just be some arbitrary ideas by some hippies.

Capitalism isn't a moral system. Just because you can exploit workers doesn't make it right to do so, despite your insistence.

 

[whatbogsends]

Ok, let's go with your assertion and assume it's empathy and not envy.

Does that make our conclusions "un"-empathetic?

You assert people are "taking advantage" of the hardworking poor, that people are getting wealthy "exploiting" them for their own financial benefit. I will admit you may feel empathy for the disparity in their earnings versus what others might earn. But the assertion that anyone is "taking advantage" of them, let alone "exploiting" them is hardly accurate, now is it?

I think you are confusing your empathy with someone else's envy. First, unless you are in the position of feeling your wages are inequitable compared to someone else's, you can't be in a position of envy. Yes, if you think the same of someone else's wages being inequitable with yet another's, that might be "empathy" - but with what are you "empathizing?" With what are you "sharing a deep emotional understanding?"

Put differently, how do you know the person for whose inequitable wages you feel such empathy feels themselves inequitably treated - except they voice their discontent? And if they voice such discontent, what is that if not ENVY - especially if the standard they use for feeling inequitably treated is someone else's wages? Again, how is that NOT envy?

Look, it's actually quite rare in this day and age, and in this nation that a person NOT be paid what they're worth. People may disagree about what their true worth is, wage-wise, but that's really not their call. They can negotiate, certainly, but in the end, it's the market that decides their worth, not some "evil wealthy person."

Absolutely your conclusions are un-empathetic.

I'm guessing the concept of fairness is lost on you.

When someone else's wages (management) are derived by extracting value of other people's wages (workers), it is not envy that drives one to the conclusion that wages are apportioned unfairly.

The market may decide what someone gets, but it certainly doesn't allocate worth (i.e. earnings) with worth (i.e. productivity).

 

[Subdood]

Why are compassion, love, and kindness seen as good while greed, hatred, animosity, and meanness seen as bad?

Must just be some arbitrary ideas by some hippies.

Capitalism isn't a moral system. Just because you can exploit workers doesn't make it right to do so, despite your insistence.

Actually, capitalism IS a moral system. The fundamental business transaction is about as moral as moral gets - two people freely exchanging value for value. It doesn't get much more moral than that because to do that, moral excellence is absolutely demanded.

 

[Redac]

Actually, capitalism IS a moral system. The fundamental business transaction is about as moral as moral gets - two people freely exchanging value for value. It doesn't get much more moral than that because to do that, moral excellence is absolutely demanded.

If things happened in a complete vacuum, you might have a point. Since there is a LOT more that influences social interactions, however, this idea that capitalism is full of "free exchange" is without merit.

That some could live in guilded castles while others lived in slums was , and is, just too much for the envious left to bear.

That you find such a thing acceptable is astonishing.

 

[kermit]

And that is supposed to be better? So we are left to argue over which particular emotion guides your actions. Reason should guide your actions, not emotions. There are plenty of rich and (supposedly) empathetic liberals out there, so why dont you all sell what you have and give it to the poor and create a great moral example for the rest of us greedy folk to follow? What gives you the right to empower the state to take what you want from others and have it redistributed as you see fit? Where is you empathy for the rights of your fellow (rich) man? Fresh out?

Discriminatory hiring is based on bigotry which is purely emotionally driven. When someone uses another emotion, empathy, to argue against it you attack them for using emotion over reason, yet you never attacked the use of emotion over reason in the discriminatory hiring.

 

[lordbt]

I'm guessing the concept of fairness is lost on you.

Define that for me.

When someone else's wages (management) are derived by extracting value of other people's wages (workers), it is not envy that drives one to the conclusion that wages are apportioned unfairly.

If you voluntarily agree to the hours and wages I offer you, how is that unfair?

The market may decide what someone gets, but it certainly doesn't allocate worth (i.e. earnings) with worth (i.e. productivity).

If you think you are worth more than what I am paying you, go out there and see if you can get more. What can be more fair than that?

 

[lordbt]

Discriminatory hiring is based on bigotry which is purely emotionally driven. When someone uses another emotion, empathy, to argue against it you attack them for using emotion over reason, yet you never attacked the use of emotion over reason in the discriminatory hiring.

Being ruled by your emotions is your business. The problem with those ruled by empathy is that they seek to employ the state to enforce that empathy on everyone. Nowhere have I advocated that the state enforce bigotry in hiring. It shoudl be as univolved in preventing bigotry as is should be in enforcing empathy. My objection, if you notice, is the involvement of the state and, thus, the introduction of force into the equation. How you run your life is your business so long as how you run it doesnt violate my rights.