ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Ok so you did exactly the same work for less pay for employers who gave you no incentive to stay . Why?
huusom already answered, but I'll just add - there are many reasons why someone might choose private versus public service. Maybe they perceive that a corporate climate is a better match for them, the hope that they could reach a very high level as an entrepreneurial type, etc. But in the end, as huusom points out, if they see that salaries were similar, then they just can't see why the public sector would be 'gripping' about low pay, or use that as a 'justification' for better pensions.
Sure. We don't have to agree on what is fair. We have to agree on a political system that makes decisions about what is fair. Fairness is part of a political process, not a rule people necessarily agree on .
Social Security has many features that were introduced to promote an idea of fairness. So do many other government programs.
And I'd prefer (in most cases) to make the decision for myself about what is 'fair' rather than turn that over to a political system, that out of necessity almost always produces a 'one-size-fits-all' brand of 'fairness' (even in the best case), and in the typical case, the 'fairness' is slanted by what the political system owes specific support groups. Funny definition of 'fair' if you ask me.
As another example
We charge all the in-state undergraduates the same tuition regardless of Major.
That does not strike me as 'fair'. Why should someone who is obtaining a degree that might require fewer resources from the University pay the way for someone who chooses a degree that is more expensive to support? I think you have an odd view of what is 'fair'. You seem to be saying "equal" is "fair"? So I should pay the same for a 52" TV as a 19" TV? Because it is 'fair'? We should let the guy buying a 19" TV subsidize the cost of the 52" TV?
You lost me.
-ERD50