Maybe I should take a go at this from another angle. It may add some clarity. We, as individuals, make decisions in our lives--decisions that have consequences, either immediate consequences to our financial lives or consequences that ultimately have an effect on it in some way. Either way, it's decisions we make (emphasis on "we"). Yes, not being born into a billionaire family most often would have a significant impact on where we eventually wind up, and it's certainly not a level playing field out here in this ole world, but I firmly believe that the wide disparity of income between the average Joe's has a lot to do with the cumulative effect of their decisions. A person with the right mindset can and does overcome many of the barriers to success if they have a track record of making smart decisions. Yes, so many factors can come into play, but there's a difference between the whiner who cries foul (justly so or otherwise) and ventures not to bravely tackle the obstacles before them and the person who makes the decisions and does the things conducive for a better outcome.
If you have a job making less than someone else with the same skills and experience, maybe you caved to the pressure of negotiating your salary because you were just so happy to even have a job whereas the other person didn't. If you have budgeted wisely, saved a nest egg and choose to settle with where you're at instead of pursuing better opportunities, then maybe that's an unforeseen effect of an inferior mindset. I have respect for people who put forth the effort to succeed, and when they wind up making five times what others make, even with less education and experience despite their gender or race or whatever excuse is readily used by those that complain (justly or otherwise), I, for one, do not cry foul.
I brought up the term "harm" before, but perhaps a better term is "negative impact". People tend to weigh the pros and cons before judging whether something is beneficial or harmful; it's a post evaluative term. I'm using it in a pre-evaluative sense such that there is both benefit and harm (or better pros and cons). Let me illustrate. The local fire department has somehow managed to secure funds from the county who collect funds through taxing its residents. Am I being harmed? Well, in the post-evaluative sense, perhaps not, but there most certainly is a negative effect. It's partly being paid for with my dollars. It negatively effects me. Yes, it also has a positive effect, and yes, the net effect might be such that the pros outweigh the cons, and so people would say I'm benefitting instead of saying that I'm being harmed, but what I'm saying is that despite that, there is a negative effect. So, perhaps it's poor word choice on my part to use the word harm as I have been.
When one enters into a work arrangement with an employer, he has no obligation to make sure everyone with the same experience, knowledge and skill are paid equally. Some think otherwise, I understand, but I don't think that. That's between the worker and the employer.
So, here I am, living in society and working. Low and behold, society can't seem to function all too well without my support. Okay, they're taxing me. Okay, I'm good with that. But, it's a negative. See, not necessarily harmful, as the positive things may outweigh the negative things. Yet, there are negative things, and the government has a duty to minimize it. So no, the government shouldn't pay unreasonable wages in carrying out their function when they have a duty to minimize the negative impact on tax payers. Civilian employers have no such duty.
