Excellent example:
“Suppose I own a coal mine. I hire two guys to dig coal for me. One guy is weak and lazy and only digs up a ton a day. The second guy is strong and hard-working and digs up 2 tons a day. What would be fair—paying them the same amount (thus eliminating “income inequality”) or paying them according to their output?
Suppose I hire a third guy who is of a scientific bent and who invents a digging machine that can extract 100 tons of coal a day. He had worked for years developing the machine, which cost him a great deal of money to manufacture. By employing his machine in my coal mine, I can generate profits equal to that of 100 times that of my slow worker, or 50 times that of my fast worker. Is it “fair” if I pay the inventor the same amount that I pay digger one or digger two? Or is the “pay gap” that would occur if I pay the inventor an amount proportionate to his production unfair?”
Now, add another parameter to the above.
The desire to succeed + the necessary skills to succeed are obtained and maintained by the individual worker.
Take two individuals, who will use the new coal digging machine:
Group 1. The first is an entitle EO union thug, who feels he/she/it is entitled to the same pay as anyone. He/she/it will perform at the bottom of a performance scale and never do anything to increase their skills and productivity.
Group 2. The second individual doesn’t believe in entitlement, he/she studies hard and works with improved knowledge and consistently out performs the entitled ones, in group 1. He/she consistently out produces the group 1’s.
In Obama’s world, he/she is not entitled to any more pay in spite significantly of their individual higher produtivity.
Thanks. I was wondering if anybody had read it. :)