Don’t school teachers work just as hard as David Letterman? Even if Letterman was born with an unusual talent, why should he earn so much more? After all, Letterman did nothing to deserve to be born unusually talented.
Comments
Trackbacks
-
M1 Student…
[...]I think it needs a powerful level of skill to create such depth in header design. Must be a[...]…
-
Fashion Style Blog…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]…
-
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
-
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
-
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
-
Blogs you should be reading…
[... ]Here is a good Blog You Might Find Interesting that him and i Encourage You[... ]……
-
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
-
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
-
Check this out…
[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……
-
Sources…
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
-
Check this out…
[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……
-
Online Article……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
First of all, to be a film maker is not as easy. The competition in the field is remarkable, and most who had invested similar amount of effort may end up with no such acheivement. Second of all, I don't suppose David Letterman simply "born with an usual talent", even if he was, he must make the effort, seek connections, and devote time and energy in production. Third of all, the reward teachers received could not be measured by the number of money they earn( nor was it the case for David, or anyone on earth). Satisfaction, feeling of belong to the community, joy of sharing and other spiritual rewards are equally significant, and should be taken into account when measuring the income.
It's an unfair comparison. And I voted that it was just so that I could comment.
A fair comparison would be to compare median salaries to get rid of outliers such as DL.
So the median salary for a comedian is probably similar to the median salary for a schoolteacher.
Was this really a statistics question?
I guess you could rephrase the question as, "Is it fair that the highest paid X makes X, whereas the highest paid schoolteacher makes X?" And you know I bet you could find a schoolteacher millionaire who has sold a teaching product in the US.
An institution can take away man's agency in the name of justice and equality.
A redistribution of resources is just if it does not violate a principle of justice. A principle of justice is such if 1) it is end-independent; 2) if it is unpatterned; 3) if it is non-arbitrary, i.e if it is a general and abstract principle that is the result of a spontaneous, dispersed and very slow process of cultural selection of successful uses, conventions and institutions (Hume, whom by the way, surprisingly enough, like the Austrian School, so far has not been discussed in these lectures).
Rawls’ so-called “difference principle” is end-dependent, patterned and arbitrary and therefore it is not a principle of justice. Rather, it would imply the violation of several principles of justice among which are included the principle of private property and the principle of equality before the law: because we are all different in innumerable respects, if those who have political power wanted to adjust our material conditions according to some particular ideas of theirs they would have to treat each one of us in a different way.
In addition, if the political power wanted to modify the end-state of individuals in one particular respect, in order not to violate the principle of equality before the law it would have to modify, for each individual, his end-states in all other respects, and it should do so also taking into consideration individual preferences. Clearly this is impossible because not even God has so much dispersed knowledge. But even if it was possible it would be a nightmare.
Not only equality of end-states is incompatible with law, with equality before the law and with liberty (intended as that condition of society in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as possible), but more in general any arbitrary modification of end-states is, and therefore also Rawls’ so-called “difference principle”.
Let us assume that Joe and Carl are in love with Linda. Linda likes guys with a lot of hair. Joe has a lot of hair; Carl very little. For the rest, let us assume that they both have the same qualities Linda requires. Should the government take by force Joe’s hair and transplant it on Carl’s head? Carl would definitely be better off in this particular respect but principles of justice would be violated (e.g. that of private property and of equality before the law) and when we enlarge the picture, even Carl, in other respects, may in the end not like to live in a society where political power could violate principles of justice.
Justice does not have anything to do with the end-states desired by political power (e.g. that of the majority) but with principles which are independent from it.
A redistribution of resources based on merit (however one wants to arbitrarily define it) would be a patterned redistribution and therefore it could not be just. Letterman is entitled to everything he earns as long as he earned it without violating an end-independent, unpatterned and non-arbitrary principle.
Incidentally, it may be useful to notice that a meritocratic society, i.e. a society in which what one earns should necessarily reflect his own merit, would be not only unjust but inhuman. Let us assume, first, that Philip is a poet; that he believes in what he writes; that other persons he holds in a very high esteem like his poetry; but that he earns very little for his poetry because there is not a great demand for it. Second, let us assume that Ryan is a producer of porn movies and that he makes a lot of money. Now, if money earned reflected merit (however one wants to arbitrarily define it) this would imply that the work of Philip has no merit. Vice-versa, if money earned reflected value (that is what people are individually willing to spend their money in - unlike what Nozick says, I believe that value is an unpatterned criteria) nobody could say that Philip’s work has no merit, but just that there is less demand for it than there is for porn movies.
In conclusion, Rawls’ so-called “difference principle” is not a principle of justice, it is an arbitrary idea that in my opinion would lead straight to the most extreme forms of totalitarianism.
Being a celebrity deserves a higher salary. A schoolteacher can have a normal life and do what they want. David Letterman probably can't go public places without having being hound him for an autograph or to say something "funny" to him. His life is not as pleasant (if the salaries were the same) as the schoolteacher.
One of my problems with this definition of just distribution (best scenario for those at the bottom) in a sufficiently large society is: how do we define 'those at the bottom'. In a large society, I can imagine that to help what is truly the very bottom will require hurting the vast majority of society. When does this stop? Would organ transplants or mass taxation for those who are born crippled to extend their lifespan for 5 years, at the cost of 40 years from a healthy lifespan be justified? Yes, and so really this argument carried even a few more steps (not even it's conclusion) we are merely dragging the whole of society to the lowest common denominator and it begins to look silly..
I like Your Article about Poll Challenge 08 - Yes - Justice with Michael Sandel Perfect just what I was looking for! .