Aristotle says that people maximize their reward, and therefore gifted people will use their abilities to the fullest.
This implies that inequality is justified, as people making less money haven’t used their skills fully.
Left wing believe it is a zerosum game. This means that if there are people making high amounts of money, there
is automatically inequality because there are people making low amounts.
Right wing however believes that new wealth is a product of skill and effort. The more effort you put in, the more
likely you will earn more. (More similar to Aristotle)
Public opinion on inequality
There are norms about inequality public is not responding randomly. Public was able to give
clear views about the pay for low status, as well as highstatus jobs.
There is variation, rather then consensus, in the incomes people feel are legitimate.
Equalitarianism (all jobs get the same pay) is rejected. There is some support for 'near' equality. A
majority of the public however supports substantial inequality.
Universally accepted norms do no legitimate occupational earnings. There is variation from
person to person.
Well educated generally favour more pay for high status occupations. The self employed who
have no employees are less supportive of the elite. Finally, the prosperous favour higher pay for elite
occupations. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is strongly supported.
Education does not lead to enlightenment, but is also doesn’t lead to selfinterest (neither lower
or high pay for low status jobs). Prosperous are more charitable to those with ordinary jobs, but other then
that, charity is not evident.
Differences in variance
People from all 9 countries are in agreement about the pay of occupations at the bottom, but not
at the top. Thus, dissensus is concentrated at the top of the occupational hierarchy as hypothesis 5
claimed, rather then at the bottom.
Neoclassical economics want to reward efficient producers.