Are we obligated to contribute to the society in which we live, by ensuring that all people are fed, educated, have access to health care, and can earn a living wage? Or are we now at a point where it's every person for themselves, and to hell with everyone else?
sort by best latest
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
When we're talking about worth, shouldn't we take into account the profits being raked in by one's employer? If your company is making billions in profits on your labor, and you can't feed your family, isn't the company obligated to pay you better?
I agree. Companies should not have to be pressed to pay workers more than they are worth. Workers can move, change jobs, get more education, and even just talk to their employer to find out what they can do for a higher wage. Possibilities are there.
A company is only obligated to pay you what you have agreed to work for. Companies exist to make a profit for their shareholders, not to make their employees comfortable while bankrupting their investors. Sad truth of the capitalist system.
A profitable company is not obligated to pay you more! Profits are a justified return for the risks undertaken to establish and run the company. As an employee, a worker's obligation to feed his family is never transferred to the company.
So greed is good, and it's fine to make billions of dollars of profits on the backs of workers who cannot afford even a meager living? Is our society really that immoral?
Why is it greedy to want a fair return on your investment? The workers agreed to work for the wages the company offered. No one put a gun to their heads and made them take the jobs.
And a fair return is billions, while workers are paid the bare minimum? At what point are there sufficient profits to let some of them trickle down to better wages and benefits for workers? Why are they not included in their company's success?
You are ignoring the fact that most corporations have thousands if not tens of thousands of shareholders, often including employees. Each ones share of those billions you claim they are making amounts to only hundreds of dollars if that much.
My heart is breaking for those poor, underpaid shareholders! When business is bad, who takes the hit? The workers. When business is good, who should benefit first? THE WORKERS. Not the CEOs, with their salaries and bonuses, and not the shareholders.
I agree about the CEOs. They are overcompensated. But most shareholders are working people trying to save for retirement. Why shouldn't they get a return on their investment? They are taking the risk by supplying the money to underwrite the business.
They do deserve a return, but who is more deserving: investors, or workers? Isn't it immoral to reap dividends, knowing the workers who generated them don't earn a living wage?
The simple answer is no. The complicated answer takes too many more than 250 characters, or indeed what can be explained in a Hub. Workers are paid for the value of their work, plain and simple. If their work was worth more, they'd get paid more.
Who sets that worth? The CEO who's getting the big salary and bonus? The guys at the top, who make big bucks, while cutting costs at the lowest levels? Shouldn't we, as a society, say the lowest job should pay at least enough for food and shelter?
My labor didn't make the company billions in profit. If my company made a billion but has a million workers, each worker generated only $1,000 in profit. Less than fifty cents per hour for a full time worker.$1/hour raise would bankrupt the company.