Mr Khan said:
This is contrary to the labor theory of value in many cases, the theory that states what you get out of work should be proportional to the work you put into it. Of course, this then gets hazy when you're talking about people who are also playing with land and capital, but if you're talking about direct salary, there is no way that the disparity between executive pay and average worker pay can be justified. The only difference between a housewife who labors with turbotax and such to keep the family finances in line and a wall-street banker who does the same thing is that the banker commands a larger vocabulary and operates at a higher level, but the amount of labor is precisely the same, and therefore should be valued the same. |
The labor theory of value, and things based off of it economically (like Marxism) have been debunked on a whole as not being sufficient. In a marketplace, people get what they can negotiate, based on the perception of value of the things being offered. Doesn't matter how hard one works, but how things are perceived to be of value, and the supply of items competing in the same marketspace, and the demand for them. Hard work, being a good team player, being innovative, smart, and so on, improve the odds, but it is the perceived value, and supply and demand, that end up making a difference.







