I find Minister Duncan's bottom 10% pay anecdote interesting, in that there isn't enough information given to draw a conclusion. Specifically: how do her teaching hours, credentials, publication volume, tenure, etc. (i.e. all other things academics use to gauge performance) compare to the others in her comparison group?

So, was she in the bottom 10% because her productivity was in the bottom 10%, of was she in the bottom 10% despite being a top 10% producer? In my opinion the former doesn't require any action while the latter does.

In other words: Equality of opportunity is what we should strive for, and leave the equality of outcomes (personal choices on how to use the opportunity) up to the individual.

Thoughts?