What is the logical difference in the following statements. In other words, why should I agree with some but not all or disagree with some but not all?
To my children’s teachers: I really appreciate the service you provide, but your pay should be limited to a figure well below the result of the competitive market.
To my garbage man: I really appreciate the service you provide, but your pay should be limited to a figure well below the result of the competitive market.
To my dentist: I really appreciate the service you provide, but your pay should be limited to a figure well below the result of the competitive market.
To my favorite restaurant’s cooking and waitstaff: I really appreciate the service you provide, but your pay should be limited to a figure well below the result of the competitive market.
To my favorite college team’s athletes: I really appreciate the service you provide, but your pay should be limited to a figure well below the result of the competitive market.
To my favorite college team’s coaches: I really appreciate the service you provide, but your pay should be limited to a figure well below the result of the competitive market.
To tease this out explicitly - being consistent would require either market-based wages for coaches and athletes or highly-restricted wages for both. Perhaps Dabo Swinney should make as much (and only as much) as the lowest-paid college football coach.
Also, arguments about the "competitive market" being an unrealistic ideal compared the "real world" are not relevant for the point I am making here. Yes, there are all kinds of problems with wages being less than optimal from an idealized competitive market perspective. So one could easily use this same implied argument to rally against the state's monopolistic control of education, cronyistic contracts for municipal sanitation, medical and other occupational licensing laws, minimum wages, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment