One of the most difficult questions to answer is how much a job is worth. We naturally expect that a doctor's salary will be higher than a bus conductor's wages. But the question becomes much more difficult to answer when we compare a miner with an engineer, or an unskilled man working on an oil-rig with a teacher in a secondary school. What the doctor, the engineer and the teacher have in common is that they have devoted several years to studying in order to obtain the necessary qualifications for their professions. We feel instinctively that these skills and these years should be rewarded. At the same time we recognize that the work of the miner and the oil-rig laborer is both hard and dangerous, and that they must be highly paid for the risks they take. Another aspect we must take into consideration is how socially useful a man's work is. Most people would agree that looking after the sick or teaching children is more important than, say, selling second-hand cars. Yet it is almost certain that the used-car salesman earns more than the nurse and the schoolteacher. Indeed, this whole question of just rewards can be turned on its head. You can argue that a man who does a job which brings him personal satisfaction is already receiving part of his reward in the form of a so-called "psychic wage", and that it is the man with the boring, repetitive job who needs more money to make up for the soul-destroying repetitiveness of his work. It is significant that the jobs like nursing and teaching continue to be poorly paid, while others, such as those in the world of sport or entertainment, carry financial rewards out of all proportion to their social worth. Although the amount of money that people earn is largely determined by market forces, this should not prevent us from seeking some way to decide what is the right pay for the job. A starting point would be to try to decide the ratio which ought to exist between the highest and the lowest paid. The picture is made more complicated by two factors: firstly by the welfare benefits which every citizen receives, and secondly by the taxation system which is often used as an instrument of social justice by taxing high incomes at a very high rate indeed. Most countries now regard a ratio of 7:1 as socially acceptable. If it is less, the highly-qualified people carrying heavy responsibilities will become disappointed, and might even end up by leaving for another country. If it is more, the difference between rich and poor will be so great that it will lead to social unrest. Which of the following statements would the author agree?
It's difficult to define the social value of a job. The market will decide what the right pay is for a job. People should find a proper ratio between high and low pay. Those receiving high salary should carry heavy responsibilities.
Question: One of the most difficult questions to answer is how much a job is worth. We naturally expect that a doctor's salary will be higher than a bus conductor's wages. But the question becomes much more difficult to answer when we compare a miner with an engineer, or an unskilled man working on an oil-rig with a teacher in a secondary school. What the doctor, the engineer and the teacher have in common is that they have devoted several years to studying in order to obtain the necessary qualifications for their professions. We feel instinctively that these skills and these years should be rewarded. At the same time we recognize that the work of the miner and the oil-rig laborer is both hard and dangerous, and that they must be highly paid for the risks they take. Another aspect we must take into consideration is how socially useful a man's work is. Most people would agree that looking after the sick or teaching children is more important than, say, selling second-hand cars. Yet it is almost certain that the used-car salesman earns more than the nurse and the schoolteacher. Indeed, this whole question of just rewards can be turned on its head. You can argue that a man who does a job which brings him personal satisfaction is already receiving part of his reward in the form of a so-called "psychic wage", and that it is the man with the boring, repetitive job who needs more money to make up for the soul-destroying repetitiveness of his work. It is significant that the jobs like nursing and teaching continue to be poorly paid, while others, such as those in the world of sport or entertainment, carry financial rewards out of all proportion to their social worth. Although the amount of money that people earn is largely determined by market forces, this should not prevent us from seeking some way to decide what is the right pay for the job. A starting point would be to try to decide the ratio which ought to exist between the highest and the lowest paid. The picture is made more complicated by two factors: firstly by the welfare benefits which every citizen receives, and secondly by the taxation system which is often used as an instrument of social justice by taxing high incomes at a very high rate indeed. Most countries now regard a ratio of 7:1 as socially acceptable. If it is less, the highly-qualified people carrying heavy responsibilities will become disappointed, and might even end up by leaving for another country. If it is more, the difference between rich and poor will be so great that it will lead to social unrest. Which of the following statements would the author agree?
A. It's difficult to define the social value of a job.
B. The market will decide what the right pay is for a job.
C. People should find a proper ratio between high and low pay.
D. Those receiving high salary should carry heavy responsibilities.
Answer: