Display:
Feel free to protest the size of the remuneration with respect to the actual added value, and discuss the general adequation of the notion of salary with respect to human life and happiness. Not being such a philosopher myself, I'm sticking with what I have: fair, in what regards pensions, is proportional with the contributions, and you didn't make a case for the contrary. You could even argue why a university professor, or a physics researcher is better payed than a steel worker; you can make all the class war you like, which you'll undoubtedly do even when there will be no more workers left. But you do have your definition of fair.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Sat May 23rd, 2009 at 05:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
fair, in what regards pensions, is proportional with the contributions, and you didn't make a case for the contrary.

Oh, but I did: The contribution is measured in a most unfair way. It is like saying that the "fair" criterion for who wins the marathon is "who is first across the finish" - when one dude just ran once around the nearest block, and the other dude ran the whole route.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat May 23rd, 2009 at 07:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not at all, that was not a discussion on the relevance of incomes with respect to the added value. In any case, I explained the use of that word and you not agreeing with that explanation doesn't change the fact that exists and is logical in the context.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Sun May 24th, 2009 at 02:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series