Sure, I'm not assuming this will go on forever. The main point of asking my question was to get a grip on a moral framework for justifying... I don't know, private property?
1) No one treats everyone else's property as well as their own (tragedy of the commons).
2) The fact that you are paid more ensures that society's demand of your kind of labor is met, resulting in a more efficient allocation of resources. If everyone instead was paid the same, there would be less incentive to get better training or to perform undesirable work, resulting in less efficient allocation of resources.
Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.
> Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning.
It is moral to allocate resources more efficiently, as it increases well-being and reduces waste.
> If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled.
Not at all. A society which allocates resources more efficiently has more resources available to deal with such problems. It is also in the self-interest of every individual to be taken care of, should they become disabled.
The (im)morality of using taxation to this end (as opposed to voluntary charity and private insurance) is a separate debate altogether.
> I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.
