[consulting] Unionizing Drupal

[E.J. Zufelt]

On 2010-08-08, at 7:19 PM, Heinz D. Wegener wrote:

>> Any system that seeks economic efficiency over equity is, IMO, evil.  As a minority with a significant disability I cannot accept any system that sees me as a less valuable member of society than others.  Less worthy of earning a living and feeding myself and my family.  I don't see the world ever moving to a place where there e is any real equity for those who do not conform to be the product that the corporate consumer wants to purchase to further it's economic interests, but don't tell me that this isn't evil.
> 
> You are not at all a less valuable member of society because of your minority status or your disability. I don't doubt that you face a good deal more obstacles because of your disability, and I wish you well in your efforts. But at the same time it sounds like you have a major chip on your shoulder... I absolutely do believe that an employer should have the right to hire who they believe is best suited for any job and should be in complete control of this decision... They have the right to hire based on experience, references, level of education, work history, and work ethic... And if it's not to further their economic interests, then the employees they hire will quickly lose their jobs. The need to hire employees is the result of a realization of economic growth and an increase in work load for a company. Clearly they must continue to further their economic interests in order to pay their employees. If we redistribute everyone's wealth to make everything "equal", then what h
> appens to the motivation to succeed? And consequently, what happens to the jobs? It's not a political viewpoint. It's common sense.
> 
Well, this might make sense to you, and perhaps to the majority, but that doesn't make it right, or any less of a political / economic ideal.  Your argument means that those who cannot conform to what corporate consumers are shopping for are less worthy of economic stability.  Making a claim that I have a 'chip' is a pretty poor form of debate.  It is always best to debate ideas and not intentions or motivations.  Regardless of my intentions or motivations my argument is valid or invalid, motivation has nothing to do with the validity or an argument.

Your argument seems to be that there would be a collapse of worker motivation and economic growth if there was a more equitable distribution of wealth.  For the purposes of this discussion I will accept your premise, I would still ask why this is necessarily a bad thing?  Are we to accept that economic growth is a greater good than equity?  If there is any value in equity at all then what do we do to ensure equity for all (which doesn't mean sameness) while ensuring that economic growth can continue?