I don't think the market pays anything close to corresponding with marginal product. That said, redistribution is usually a poor solution. My own model is something like as follows: society is divided between competent and Incompetent people. Competent people are on average paid more than the Incompetent and in that sense market outcomes are "fair." However, among the competent, success is highly dependent on luck. Some might consider that outcome "unfair." But most redistribution schemes are too costly to do anything about it. "Efficient redistribution" is possible but not particularly popular and may not do much to address the luck issue regardless. I conclude it often makes sense to live with "unfairness," because alternatives are usually worse.
I don't think about income in terms of marginal product in the first place, but if I did, I would say that it's impossible to know whether anyone's income is anything close to the person's marginal product. I agree completely that redistribution is a poor solution, and not just usually, but always, if the redistribution is not voluntary.
I note that you put the word "fair" in quotes. I would be interested in your definition of the word.
I agree that success often enough involves luck, but I think it's easy to overstate the significance of luck. I think persistence beats luck often enough, which is important, since persistence is a choice.
What in the world would "efficient redistribution" be? I cannot consider your final sentence without knowing how you define "fair."
Thanks for the read and comment. Always a pleasure.
I don't think the market pays anything close to corresponding with marginal product. That said, redistribution is usually a poor solution. My own model is something like as follows: society is divided between competent and Incompetent people. Competent people are on average paid more than the Incompetent and in that sense market outcomes are "fair." However, among the competent, success is highly dependent on luck. Some might consider that outcome "unfair." But most redistribution schemes are too costly to do anything about it. "Efficient redistribution" is possible but not particularly popular and may not do much to address the luck issue regardless. I conclude it often makes sense to live with "unfairness," because alternatives are usually worse.
I don't think about income in terms of marginal product in the first place, but if I did, I would say that it's impossible to know whether anyone's income is anything close to the person's marginal product. I agree completely that redistribution is a poor solution, and not just usually, but always, if the redistribution is not voluntary.
I note that you put the word "fair" in quotes. I would be interested in your definition of the word.
I agree that success often enough involves luck, but I think it's easy to overstate the significance of luck. I think persistence beats luck often enough, which is important, since persistence is a choice.
What in the world would "efficient redistribution" be? I cannot consider your final sentence without knowing how you define "fair."
Thanks for the read and comment. Always a pleasure.