Equality May Lead To Banality?

[wenglund]

What do you see as the disadvantages to society for equal pay for equal work?

The disadvantage is the tendency to focus on the equal pay part rather than on equal work part, and to view equality of pay as the objective and purview of the government, rather than it more reasonably being a result of value-for-value market forces. Take for example the movie Le Miserables. Russel Crow may have worked almost as much as Eddie Redmayne in the movie, And, even though Russel's singing was inferior Eddie's, it is very unlikely that they were paid the same for the same work, nor should they because Russel is a far bigger draw at the box office than Eddie. While their work may be relatively equal, the value they bring to the production isn't equal, and so it wouldn't make sense to pay them equally. For the government to demand equal pay for equal work in this case, would result in banality.

There are numerous other examples that can be cited, but this should suffice in making the point. What we should be striving for isn't equal pay for equal work, but what is best and progresses us, which in turn will produce equal pay for equal work where it make sense, but not where it doesn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 4, 2013 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've never argued for a literal economic equality. But something is seriously wrong when someone has 10,000 lunches and the person next to him goes hungry.

Something else is wrong when you take those lunches from the "have's" and redistrubute it to the "have not's" all in the name of "they need to pay their fair share".

But in the name of not going there I actually agree with your initial thoughts.

[Mansquatch]

[media=]

[wenglund]

[media=]

I appreciate you posting this. For the most part, it does bust the myth. However, there is one important exception to the stqted rule, and that is over the last several years or so, the average wage for the top quintile has gone up, while the other quintile have either remained about even or declined. In other words, the administration that speaks most about equality, has produced the least equitable results in the last 30 or 40 years.

Now, I don't wish to get into politics, but this recent divergence in average wages (where the rich are actually getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer), like with other public policy matters where equality has been a primary goal--such as minimum wage, education, etc., the effort to achieve equality tends to produce just the opposite effect. When the government forces businesses to increase minimum wage, study after study have proven that the people most dis benefited are the low-income wage earners. (see HERE and HERE)

In education, when students are given relatively the same grades regardless of performance, with the intent of treating everyone the same and avoiding hurt feeling, the tendency is for overall performance to go down because the incentive for better performance is gone.

In other words, what often inadvertently happens when the goal is equality, the tendency is to equalize downward rather than upwards. In economic terms, instead of everyone getting equally rich, equality measures like redistribution of wealth may have a chilling affect on incentive, and as a result we all pretty much become equally poorer. Striving towards equality tends to be digressive. Or, in other words, equality may lead to banality or bananality.

This is, in part, is why I believe the gospel doesn't emphasis equality, but instead it focuses on betterment and progression. To me, it isn't coincidental that the plan of salvation is referred to as the plan of progression rather than the plan of equality. Yet, if you look at counterfeit plans, like socialism, the goal is equality. Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bcuzbcuz]

[media=]

There are three kinds of liars. Liars, damned liars and statisticians. ( or in this case libertarian economists)

[bcuzbcuz]

The disadvantage is the tendency to focus on the equal pay part rather than on equal work part, and to view equality of pay as the objective and purview of the government, rather than it more reasonably being a result of value-for-value market forces. Take for example the movie Le Miserables. Russel Crow may have worked almost as much as Eddie Redmayne in the movie, And, even though Russel's singing was inferior Eddie's, it is very unlikely that they were paid the same for the same work, nor should they because Russel is a far bigger draw at the box office than Eddie. While their work may be relatively equal, the value they bring to the production isn't equal, and so it wouldn't make sense to pay them equally. For the government to demand equal pay for equal work in this case, would result in banality.

There are numerous other examples that can be cited, but this should suffice in making the point. What we should be striving for isn't equal pay for equal work, but what is best and progresses us, which in turn will produce equal pay for equal work where it make sense, but not where it doesn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting, but hardly relevant. Two people, same education, same number of years in work force, same workload and title. One gets 25% less pay. Three guesses as to which of the two is a woman.

[The Nehor]

I've never argued for a literal economic equality. But something is seriously wrong when someone has 10,000 lunches and the person next to him goes hungry.

I agree completely. We would be a better society if everyone had similar sized lunches and chose to distinguish themselves individually by more interesting means.

My mom stopped by today and gave me my favorite lunch (had surgery Friday so she is trying to be kind) so I admit I have the best lunch today.

[BCSpace]

I've never argued for a literal economic equality. But something is seriously wrong when someone has 10,000 lunches and the person next to him goes hungry.

It's not a free market capitalist system that would be wrong or broken in that case. That system mirrors the neutral system of agency and enticements the Lord has set up (2 Nephi 2) and so anything good or bad happening in that system is the responsibility of the individuals in it. The moment we set up a different system which removes that responsibility, such as a Socialist one, is the moment we lose our salvation, both temporally and spiritually.

[The Nehor]

It's not a free market capitalist system that would be wrong or broken in that case. That system mirrors the neutral system of agency and enticements the Lord has set up (2 Nephi 2) and so anything good or bad happening in that system is the responsibility of the individuals in it. The moment we set up a different system which removes that responsibility, such as a Socialist one, is the moment we lose our salvation, both temporally and spiritually.

Indeed, the Free Market IS the gospel. That is why the scriptures are replete with commands to exercise your agency to acquire wealth and the wealthy are continually commended for their prudence, industry, and wisdom.

[Mansquatch]

I appreciate you posting this. For the most part, it does bust the myth. However, there is one important exception to the stqted rule, and that is over the last several years or so, the average wage for the top quintile has gone up, while the other quintile have either remained about even or declined. In other words, the administration that speaks most about equality, has produced the least equitable results in the last 30 or 40 years.

Now, I don't wish to get into politics, but this recent divergence in average wages (where the rich are actually getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer), like with other public policy matters where equality has been a primary goal--such as minimum wage, education, etc., the effort to achieve equality tends to produce just the opposite effect. When the government forces businesses to increase minimum wage, study after study have proven that the people most dis benefited are the low-income wage earners. (see HERE and HERE)

In education, when students are given relatively the same grades regardless of performance, with the intent of treating everyone the same and avoiding hurt feeling, the tendency is for overall performance to go down because the incentive for better performance is gone.

In other words, what often inadvertently happens when the goal is equality, the tendency is to equalize downward rather than upwards. In economic terms, instead of everyone getting equally rich, equality measures like redistribution of wealth may have a chilling affect on incentive, and as a result we all pretty much become equally poorer. Striving towards equality tends to be digressive. Or, in other words, equality may lead to banality or bananality.

This is, in part, is why I believe the gospel doesn't emphasis equality, but instead it focuses on betterment and progression. To me, it isn't coincidental that the plan of salvation is referred to as the plan of progression rather than the plan of equality. Yet, if you look at counterfeit plans, like socialism, the goal is equality. Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Indeed, I will admit that the numbers used in the video do go back quite a ways. The principle has generally held true though and it is mostly due to what Maidservant referred to as "self-determination", which people in our neck of the woods still have on some basic level. I myself just left the ranks of the poverty-stricken in 2010 (hopefully never to return) even with turmoil around me in such times. 'Tis a fine line to not be political while discussing that which has to do with our "agency", as they are one in the same.

I believe that people have the right to form contracts with other people for any amount they deem fit (that's a shot at minimum wage). I also believe that freedom of conscience necessarily goes to all sides of disagreements (with the exception of those who infringe upon others' rights). Some have mentioned SSM and I believe the correct answer is that such a question is a doctrinal one much like the definition of "baptism". There should be no legal definition of "marriage" or "baptism" so that neither side is forced to go against their belief. Is that issue the context of the inspiration for the thought of equality in the OP on this thread?

"77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.."

If one is not violating the rights of others then they will answer to God for their actions. Otherwise the laws of man have proper authority over them "equally". If God's main concern in our lives is "equality" amongst his children He sure did screw that one up. We are all very different with different capabilities and we seem to be experiencing poverty/wealth, pleasure/pain, good/bad, sickness/health all at seemingly random times in our lives. The plan of Lucifer is much more consistent with an "equality" agenda and the Lord seems much more concerned with obedience, learning, improvement, freedom and the "moral agency" to choose those things for ourselves.

edit: because the scripture quote was cut off.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Mansquatch

[wenglund]

Interesting, but hardly relevant. Two people, same education, same number of years in work force, same workload and title. One gets 25% less pay. Three guesses as to which of the two is a woman.

Actually, my point was completely relevant. You, on the other hand, forgot to factor in the most important, and perhaps the only relevant, variable--i.e. "value" (and I am not just talking here about productivity, though that is a key component, but other somewhat intangible factors as well, such as self-sufficiency, leadership qualities, health, focus, etc.).

Besides, the studies I have seen, they typically don't measure to the degree of specificity that you describe above. Typically, they look at things generally--i.e. nationally, by state, by industry, etc., and don't factor in a variety of mitigating variables.

I mention this because my own lengthy work experience in finance and education tell a somewhat different story.

Even still, if there is a disparity in wages, and if the disparity is in value in relation to wages, then, the point is rather than having public policy strive for equality, which may result in banality, have businesses strive instead for what is best and progressive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I agree completely. We would be a better society if everyone had similar sized lunches and chose to distinguish themselves individually by more interesting means.

My mom stopped by today and gave me my favorite lunch (had surgery Friday so she is trying to be kind) so I admit I have the best lunch today.

No fair! I had to make my own lunch! I demand, in the name of equality, that your Mom bring me lunch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, my point was completely relevant. You, on the other hand, forgot to factor in the most important, and perhaps the only relevant, variable--i.e. "value" (and I am not just talking here about productivity, though that is a key component, but other somewhat intangible factors as well, such as self-sufficiency, leadership qualities, health, focus, etc.).

Besides, the studies I have seen, they typically don't measure to the degree of specificity that you describe above. Typically, they look at things generally--i.e. nationally, by state, by industry, etc., and don't factor in a variety of mitigating variables.

I mention this because my own lengthy work experience in finance and education tell a somewhat different story.

Even still, if there is a disparity in wages, and if the disparity is in value in relation to wages, then, the point is rather than having public policy strive for equality, which may result in banality, have businesses strive instead for what is best and progressive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, and we know that in the free market, capitalist system, that businesses strive for what is best and progressive.....? Always have their employees best at heart....?

[Mansquatch]

Oh, and we know that in the free market, capitalist system, that businesses strive for what is best and progressive.....? Always have their employees best at heart....?

Oh, and we know that in the free [agency], [life] system, that [people] strive for what is best and progressive....? Always have [other people's] best at heart....?

People really need to give up on trying to control others. It makes things horrible.

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, my point was completely relevant. You, on the other hand, forgot to factor in the most important, and perhaps the only relevant, variable--i.e. "value" (and I am not just talking here about productivity, though that is a key component, but other somewhat intangible factors as well, such as self-sufficiency, leadership qualities, health, focus, etc.).

Besides, the studies I have seen, they typically don't measure to the degree of specificity that you describe above. Typically, they look at things generally--i.e. nationally, by state, by industry, etc., and don't factor in a variety of mitigating variables.

I mention this because my own lengthy work experience in finance and education tell a somewhat different story.

Even still, if there is a disparity in wages, and if the disparity is in value in relation to wages, then, the point is rather than having public policy strive for equality, which may result in banality, have businesses strive instead for what is best and progressive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I'm understanding you correctly you mean that the intangible factors I forgot to calculate in are "value added" factors, such as 'self-sufficiency', 'leadership qualities', 'focus'; ......all of which are somehow "male" qualities?????

All of which justify someone getting higher pay?

All I'm asking, is, where in the articles of faith or any scripture, does it say that women should be paid less than men, when they are doing the exact same job? Or am I missing the point entirely that "men and women shouldn't be doing the exact same job"?

[rodheadlee]

Interesting, but hardly relevant. Two people, same education, same number of years in work force, same workload and title. One gets 25% less pay. Three guesses as to which of the two is a woman.

Totally relevant. 2 carpenters are building stairs, one carpenter builds 4 sets of stairs per day and the other builds 2 sets of stairs per day. Why should they get equal pay? In some places the carpenter building 4 sets per day will get threatened and beat up if he doesn't slow down and build only 2 sets per day.

and none of them are women.

In a perfect Christ like world the carpenter that builds 4 sets will stop at 3 and go help the slower carpenter build a 3rd set.

Edited March 5, 2013 by rodheadlee

[wenglund]

Oh, and we know that in the free market, capitalist system, that businesses strive for what is best and progressive.....? Always have their employees best at heart....?

Indirectly, yes. It is called the invisible hand. While both employer and employee primarily have their own interests at heart, reason dictates that their own interest is tied to each other's interest. If an employer wants her business to thrive, which often necessitates keep her experienced and able employees and not motivating them to strike, she needs to look out for the interest of her employees, and if her employees wish to keep their job, they need to look out for the interest of their employer.

And, until we people become more Christlike and selfless, the invisible hand, while not perfect, is the best we have, and certainly better than the alternative--i.e. bureaucratic meddling.

Principally, it is the same within the Church. We may start out our faith journey acting in our own best interest, with the understanding that our best interest is tied to the interest of the Church and its member, yet as we progress in the gospel, we begin to lose ourselves, and thus our interest becomes more and more the interest of each other and the Church.

However, this is taking us a bit far afield from the topic of the thread. Whether or not businesses always have their employees best interest at heart, striving for equality may lead to banality, and so it is in everyone's interest to strive instead for what is best and what enables progress, even if during the early stages of progress it is about one's own best interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

If I'm understanding you correctly you mean that the intangible factors I forgot to calculate in are "value added" factors, such as 'self-sufficiency', 'leadership qualities', 'focus'; ......all of which are somehow "male" qualities?????

All of which justify someone getting higher pay?

No. They are qualities that are possessed by both sexes though, as a rule, not necessarily to an equal extent.

Please, I hope you haven't bought into the pop cultural nonsense that the sexes are equal in every respect. There are things like size and strength and propensity for risk-taking, among other things, that unavoidably, as a rule, give men an advantage over women in certain occupations and capacities, whereas there are things like intuition, nurturing, and a sense of prudence and security, to name just a few, which give women an advantage over men in certain occupations and capacities.

In short, because men and women are wonderfully different, attempts to treat them the same or equal, may lead to banality. I saw this first hand working for a mutual fund and stock brokerage firm. We had considerably fewer women in the brokerage department, not because they were offered different pay (everyone started out at the same pay grade), and not because they would be treated differently than the men (in order to attract more women to the department, we tended to give preferential treatment to women in terms of merit reviews and advancements), but because as a general rule the women weren't all that interested in the oft rough-and-tumble world of brokerage. Yet, the opposite seemed to be true for the training department. The women far out-numbered the men, and the department was entirely managed by women. No attempt was made to attract men to the department through preferential treatment in merit reviews and advancements, In fact, quite the contrary. As a rule, men got the worst reviews and no advancements--regardless of performance. In the interest of equality, women were given preferential treatment in both departments, whereas to some extent men were discriminated against. The result wasn't in people getting value-for-value and the male and/or female cream rising to the top and the company performing at its best. Instead, the results were, in some respects, politically correct mediocrity. Striving for equality in that instance led to banality.

All I'm asking, is, where in the articles of faith or any scripture, does it say that women should be paid less than men, when they are doing the exact same job?

Your question mistakenly assumes that the AF and scriptures would speak to this issue of financial wage equality between men and women (this issue falls well outside the purview and purpose of the gospel), and is thus banal. Here again, your obsession with equality led to banality. The AF and scriptures are intent on achieving the four-fold mission of the Church, and thus they aren't concerned with financial wages--except allegorically, and even there they do anything but promoting equal pay for equal work. If you recall the Savior's parable of the laborers, the laborers who came to work at the end of the day were given the same wages as those who worked all day.

Or am I missing the point entirely that "men and women shouldn't be doing the exact same job"?

You are definitely missing the point, though not in the way you suppose.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

It's not a free market capitalist system that would be wrong or broken in that case. That system mirrors the neutral system of agency and enticements the Lord has set up (2 Nephi 2) and so anything good or bad happening in that system is the responsibility of the individuals in it. The moment we set up a different system which removes that responsibility, such as a Socialist one, is the moment we lose our salvation, both temporally and spiritually.

That is simply not true. No economic system is neutral. IE: One person is born into abject poverty with few if any educational opportunities. The other is born with a Gold plated Latinum spoon in their mouth with all the advantages that his parents wealth provides. Which one is more likely to do well economically?

Gibberish. What you are saying is that the person born into poverty is economically equal to the person who had the sense to be born of rich parents.

I've never argued for a Socialist economic system, only a more fair one. Besides the Gospel is one of Socialism. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

[bcuzbcuz]

Indirectly, yes. It is called the invisible hand. While both employer and employee primarily have their own interests at heart, reason dictates that their own interest is tied to each other's interest. If an employer wants to keep employees and not have them strike, she needs to look out for the interest of her employees, and if her employees wish to keep their job, they need to look out for the interest of their employer.

And, until we people become more Christlike and selfless, the invisible hand, while not perfect, is the best we have, and certainly better than the alternative--i.e. beuracratic meddling.

Principally, it is the same within the Church. We may start out our faith journey acting in our own best interest, with the understanding that our best interest is tied to the interest of the Church and its member, yet as we progress in the gospel, we begin to lose ourselves, and thus our interest becomes more and more the interest of each other and the Church.

However, this is taking us a bit far afield from the topic of the thread. Whether or not businesses always have their employees best interest at heart, striving for equality may lead to banality, and so it is in everyone's interest to strive instead for what is best and what enables progress.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We all have our biases. I gave up on the "invisible hand" a long time ago. Right about the time the "invisible hand" gave me a smack in the face.

The only "invisible hand" nowadays is the carefully hidden proceedings of international giants and conglomerates that have no concern in their "employees" and can quickly abandon any concern simply by pulling up shop and moving to a new country that prefers income to the welfare of its people. Your "invisible hand" only works when in a confined market or community. And that no longer exists.

Expressions like "invisible hand", "even playing field" "laissez faire" have gone out the window. My bias is that we have entered a new "feudal age" of industry, with "feudal lords" who rule and rape and hide, and get filthy wealthy in the process.

I don't have an answer. Very few economic papers I've read in the last number of years actually deal with and describe the reality we live in nowadays. I just end up screaming out frustration into the darkness.

[wenglund]

We all have our biases. I gave up on the "invisible hand" a long time ago. Right about the time the "invisible hand" gave me a smack in the face.

The only "invisible hand" nowadays is the carefully hidden proceedings of international giants and conglomerates that have no concern in their "employees" and can quickly abandon any concern simply by pulling up shop and moving to a new country that prefers income to the welfare of its people. Your "invisible hand" only works when in a confined market or community. And that no longer exists.

Expressions like "invisible hand", "even playing field" "laissez faire" have gone out the window. My bias is that we have entered a new "feudal age" of industry, with "feudal lords" who rule and rape and hide, and get filthy wealthy in the process.

I don't have an answer. Very few economic papers I've read in the last number of years actually deal with and describe the reality we live in nowadays. I just end up screaming out frustration into the darkness.

I can't speak to your personal experience and perspective since it differs so wildly from my own--and this, even though I have suffered considerable financial hardships over the last decade or so both as an employer and as an employee.

I also don't know that it would prove fruitful to discuss your personal perspective on the world economy since it tends to be tangential to the topic of the thread.

So, I will simply leave it at: to each their own in this regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bcuzbcuz]

http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3220

That is simply not true. No economic system is neutral. IE: One person is born into abject poverty with few if any educational opportunities. The other is born with a Gold plated Latinum spoon in their mouth with all the advantages that his parents wealth provides. Which one is more likely to do well economically?

Gibberish. What you are saying is that the person born into poverty is economically equal to the person who had the sense to be born of rich parents.

I've never argued for a Socialist economic system, only a more fair one. Besides the Gospel is one of Socialism. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

I worked for eight years on Native reserves in Northern Canada. In Canada, the native people have "status cards" that define them as being acceptedly "native" and issued cards by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that entitles them to a few privileges but abandons them to a life of poor education, poor health care, and poverty. I have no idea (other than a few films I've seen) if the same situation exists in the US but the native people are Canada's "third world".

I totally agree with your summary of the economic system. (but I can't honestly say I would have that position if I had not lived on Reservations and seen it for myself)

[EllenMaksoud]

Since we are studying the D&C in Sunday School this year, it is likely that the topic of the United Order may get raised, which in turn may lead to discussions on equality.

There are also other LDS issues frequently discussed on this board that touch on the notion of equality, like SSM and Title IX, etc..

As such, I thought I would share here a powerful allegory posted by thesometimesaint in another thread, with the intent of discussing it here in ways that extend beyond what he or she intended:

Wow! Excellent example! This is fantastic! It helps illustrate, to some extent, flaws in the thinking of those obsessed with equality. It not only illustrates that universal equality and non-discrimination is impossible, but also that striving for equality as the ultimate end can, at times, result in banality.

To see how, lets expand upon your example: suppose that one of my children's bodies was telling him he needs more fibber, and that is why he was asking for an apple; whereas my other child's body was telling her she was low on potassium, and that is why she asked for a banana. Treating the children quasi equally by giving them both an apple, not only discriminates as you suggest (some radical egalitarians might even assert that the discrimination was sexist since it was the son's request that was complied with), may inadvertently deny one of the children what her body really needs. Equality, in this instance, wasn't in, and may have worked against, everyone's best interest. Equality may result in banality.

I am so glad you brought this example up because I think that, in principle, it applies analogously to a number of pop cultural issue related to the LDS faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think I want equality. Equity seems far better to me. I like my kitchen. Driving tractor and blowing stumps all day is not how I want to live my life. Sitting in board room with men who yell at each other is not pleasurable.

[The Nehor]

Indirectly, yes. It is called the invisible hand. While both employer and employee primarily have their own interests at heart, reason dictates that their own interest is tied to each other's interest. If an employer wants her business to thrive, which often necessitates keep her experienced and able employees and not motivating them to strike, she needs to look out for the interest of her employees, and if her employees wish to keep their job, they need to look out for the interest of their employer.

The invisible hand is a theory. Even the theorists gave all kinds of prerequisites for it to work correctly.

There is also the obvious tragedy ofmthe commons problems, game theory, and the like.

Let's look at a common problem. Heavy outsourcing to cheaper workforces elsewhere. Now if everyone does it it ruins the market as there are not enough employed in the original nation to afford to buy the services being sold. Problem is one company makng the switch will not cause this so each has an incentive to do the long-term dumb thing because they alone will not trigger the bad effect. Similar things happen with environmental waste and many other effects.

I think the problem is some people see the government as the biggest bully on the block that must be dealt with and constrained. They refuse to acknowledge that without the government keeping them in line lesser bullies can be equally tyrannical.

[thesometimesaint]

I worked for eight years on Native reserves in Northern Canada. In Canada, the native people have "status cards" that define them as being acceptedly "native" and issued cards by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that entitles them to a few privileges but abandons them to a life of poor education, poor health care, and poverty. I have no idea (other than a few films I've seen) if the same situation exists in the US but the native people are Canada's "third world".

I totally agree with your summary of the economic system. (but I can't honestly say I would have that position if I had not lived on Reservations and seen it for myself)

We have somewhat the same situation here in the US. We kicked the Indians off of any land that was of value. Leaving millions to die, and/or with limited means to improve economically. I have two good friends that are American Indians. One was able to make it off the reservation while the other didn't.