Indeed, as many friends say, in order for a team to function well, the core of the various rules set is to maximize the interests of the whole team.
Of course, to be specific, this kind of benefit maximization has at least two levels:
The first is that the sum of the benefits of the whole team should be maximized. That's what we usually mean when we say make a big cake. We want to make the cake bigger, only when the cake is bigger, what everyone gets may be *** Therefore, the overall cake is a prerequisite.
The second is that making the cake bigger does not mean that it is the result, so how to divide the cake is another important issue.
For example, it's often said that Jack Ma and I have reached the level of billionaires on average, but the reality is that many of us are living on the poverty line. Then, in this case, this kind of cake distribution is obviously not able to support the whole team to have better combat effectiveness.
Of course, the distribution of the cake is essentially the distribution of the rules of interest. Again, here will be broughtTwo typical clash of ideas:
The first idea is egalitarianism, where everyone distributes equally. I think that people who have experienced the era of planned economy can understand that the rule of equal distribution does seem to be relatively fair, but it is difficult for this rule to reflect the difference in contribution between people, it is easy to breed people who eat big pot rice, and it is easy to breed those who are lazy. It is difficult to grow bigger, and in the end, the total amount of allocation in the whole team is also reduced.
Another idea is distribution according to work. The concept of distribution according to work can indeed avoid some of the drawbacks of egalitarianism. Taking China's reform and opening up as an example, after changing from a planned economy to distribution according to work, and after moving to a market economy, many enterprises are full of vitality. This shows that after allowing some people to get rich first and others to get rich later, the overall cake is indeed bigger than the original.
However, as this gap between rich and poor widens, new problems arise.
What kind of gap between rich and poor is a reasonable range? That's a real challenge in practice.
For those who are capable, it is indeed necessary to encourage them, they must get more, otherwise it will be difficult for them to have a positive willingness to work, which will make the overall cake of the whole team lower. However, the reverse is also true, if too much emphasis is placed on this income distribution gap, those who have too low income, in the long term in the absence of effective incentives, can not get effective returns, they will still choose to lie flat, they will also lose their fighting spirit, and when these people form an important basis for creating the whole cake, the volume of the whole cake will still lose the possibility of further growth.
So,Seeking a suitable equilibrium point in which those with high ability can be encouraged and the impact of the income gap between the rich and the poor on the total cake is minimal, then this equilibrium is the most important equilibrium point in all systems involving distribution.
Conceptually, perhaps the Gini coefficient expresses such a basic equilibrium. However, from a practical point of view, even if such a concept of the Gini coefficient is cited, there is no guarantee that a particular Gini coefficient will always constitute a theoretically optimal equilibrium point in different countries, different eras, and different cultural backgrounds.
I think,This requires us to constantly explore and improve in practice