1. Jack and Peter are salaried employees.
Jack' wage is at the lowest level while Peter's is that of a senior executive. Now, to compensate for the relative weakness of the lowest wages, the legislator is introducing public redistribution. At first, the ratio between James' and Peter's wages remained the same.
2. But on the other hand, the adjustment of the distribution of total labor income continues.
In the considerations taken into account for this adjustment, over time, the redistribution of the relative weakness of low wages. The narrowing of the wage gap between Jack and Peter is slowed down or replaced by its opposite.
3. The disadvantages of compensating for the low wages by redistribution last as long as this redistribution.
The costs of administering the device are one of these disadvantages. In addition, there are the perverse effects inherent in employment subsidies (next proposal).
4. Compensation for the low wages of low wages by redistribution is not an organic necessity.
It could be so if the distribution of national labor income were not adjustable by the social body by means of different rates of wage increases according to their levels.
5. The gradual repeal of redistributions motivated by low wages is possible.
This is, however, on condition that we go hand in hand with a faster rise in low wages than in high wages, until the resulting tightening is the adjustment desired by collective subjectivity.