A thank you to Timothy Bedwell for his Sept. 27 letter, "Why do producers finish last?," which was a response to my Sept. 23 letter soliciting a "rationale for redistribution." But there are a number of ambiguous statements in Bedwell's letter.
For example, he asserts that low-level employees are hard workers (which I do not dispute) and that management does nothing but "sit around and collect more money than they can spend." This is not how the business world works. Responsibility is a big part of compensation.
Bedwell then asks, "Why are our resources diverted more toward entertaining the egotistic ambitions of a few, instead of the good will of all?" None of the groups — "our," "a few," "all" — is defined, nor are "resources" or "good will." Also, Bedwell states that a solution to unsatisfactory wealth redistribution is to "Make sure the wealth is distributed better to begin with."
How is that possible when wealth, by definition, has already been distributed? Any attempt to alter the current distribution of assets would be redistribution.
Is Bedwell confusing wealth and income?
Any organization that attempts to compensate both low-skill and high-skill workers equally will find itself with nothing but low-skilled workers for the short time that it exists. The laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of physics.
The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.