Honest question: why not? It’s a similar philosophy to the question of, what is more important: the worker bees or the tycoon who hires and pays them?
IMO, neither can exist without the other; the cities can’t exist without the farmers, the cities make the equipment that allow the farmers to be more productive. It’s symbiotic, neither is more important than the other.
You’re overthinking it. The tycoon can’t run his business without employees; conversely the employees are paid a fair wage for their efforts (or they find alternate employment). Now, if you said that collectively the employees made as much as the ceo you’d be closer - but in a truly free market it would be balanced out by free-market forces. The ceo will always pay the lowest amount for his employees as the market will bare; conversely, the employee will always seek the highest wage for his skills that the market will bare. (Now this is all theoretical - there are far more forces at work for both sides than purely wages. But it’s all to say that nowhere did I say that the worker should earn the same pay as the ceo, “come on man.”)
No, you’re getting distracted from your initial statement. Your retort to my disagreement of an area with such a small amount of people being worth the same as a big city was that the city couldn’t function without the fruits of the small populated areas Labour. This sounds very commie bro.
Yeah, very fair point. Idk though, I feel like they shouldn’t be the exact same though...
Honest question: why not? It’s a similar philosophy to the question of, what is more important: the worker bees or the tycoon who hires and pays them?
IMO, neither can exist without the other; the cities can’t exist without the farmers, the cities make the equipment that allow the farmers to be more productive. It’s symbiotic, neither is more important than the other.
Sounds too communist to me. ‘Society can’t function without the binmen, pay them the same as doctors’.
You’re overthinking it. The tycoon can’t run his business without employees; conversely the employees are paid a fair wage for their efforts (or they find alternate employment). Now, if you said that collectively the employees made as much as the ceo you’d be closer - but in a truly free market it would be balanced out by free-market forces. The ceo will always pay the lowest amount for his employees as the market will bare; conversely, the employee will always seek the highest wage for his skills that the market will bare. (Now this is all theoretical - there are far more forces at work for both sides than purely wages. But it’s all to say that nowhere did I say that the worker should earn the same pay as the ceo, “come on man.”)
No, you’re getting distracted from your initial statement. Your retort to my disagreement of an area with such a small amount of people being worth the same as a big city was that the city couldn’t function without the fruits of the small populated areas Labour. This sounds very commie bro.