To put it another way ....

[dales]

and we all know how that turned out............

[Econoline]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen)

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1851. The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" including

• I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
  II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
  III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

Some scholars trace the origin of the phrase to the New Testament. In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need":

• Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

...and we all know how that turned out....!

[dales]

The apostles gave VOLUNTARILY those under communist domination..................not so much.

[rubato]

The pie is not a convincing analogy for of course you stack the deck by declaring that all 10 people contribute in an exactly equal proportion, performing the same tasks. That is not life.

In life, I own the kitchen, the oven and all the ingredients. I pay 9 people to make pies. I make no pies but they are my pies.

I make the pies available for sale to the public, taking the risk that none will be sold or only some. When a person buys my pie, none of the 9 who made it "deserve" a slice. Only the person who bought it, and anyone he or she chooses to share it with, "deserves" the pie.

I "deserve" all the revenue from the pie, while the 9 who baked it "deserve" nothing - they've been paid. As long as they continue to make pies and I continue to sell them, my nine-person workforce "deserves" to receive their wages. They can save up and buy a pie, or not - as they choose. Mostly they buy cable television and possibly a mention in the Darwin Awards.

If they decide to revolt and take the pies by force, the minions of law and order will trample them under large horses and a judge will ensure they get what they "deserve".

So you're a Libertarian; you are entitled to pay them as little as they will accept.

But what if that amount is too little to pay the costs of existence? What if you are like Wal Mart; you pay so little that your employees have to get welfare.

Or what if the employees are getting $15,000 each per year and you are making $10,000,000. Do you think they would have a reasonable claim that you are exploiting them?


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Perhaps you should save that one for a thread where someone has said that things should be divided "exactly equally". If you can find one.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

In the OP the top 20% each get almost 200 times as much as the bottom 40% do.

There are only so many hours in the day and in the year. The typical working year is 2080 hours and the total hours in the year are 8760 so the very largest multiplier for someone who never slept, cooked , &c would be 4x. In practice, few people work much more than 2x on a sustained basis. Medical residents, people in their 20s, used to be required to work 80-100 weeks and they found that judgement deteriorated and they bodies broke down so they don't make them to that any more. And we know that a lot of the people in the bottom 40% work more than one job themselves. So it is difficult to justify getting 200 times as much just on being more diligent and working more. 2 or 3 times perhaps, but not 200.

If we really believe in an equality of dignity and respect that is owed to each person then we cannot allow compensation to be infinitely different. There must be some 'brake' to the multiplier. There must be some point where it begins to offend decency.* But how do we determine what that is?

This should be an urgent problem and Bernie's very successful candidacy should be leading us that direction.


yrs,
rubato

* Rawls expressed the idea that the range in differential compensation should be more tightly linked.

[Lord Jim]

Perhaps you should save that one for a thread where someone has said that things should be divided "exactly equally". If you can find one.

Is it more fair if they all get the same amount because they contributed the same fraction of their lives in making the pie?

Oh wait, that's right...

That wasn't an "assertion"....

It was just a really stupid question....

[MajGenl.Meade]

So you're a Libertarian; you are entitled to pay them as little as they will accept.

But what if that amount is too little to pay the costs of existence? What if you are like Wal Mart; you pay so little that your employees have to get welfare.

Or what if the employees are getting $15,000 each per year and you are making $10,000,000. Do you think they would have a reasonable claim that you are exploiting them?
yrs,
rubato

(a) am I and yes I am so entitled
(2) I don't care; let them get other jobs
(iii) let them complain.

Actually, I have tremendous sympathy for the view that executives are (in the main) paid far too much - they don't own the means of production and their pay/bonuses are disgustingly huge