Some people think that certain workers like nurses, doctors and teachers are undervalued and should be paid more, especially when other people like film actors or company bosses are paid huge sums of money that are out of proportion to the importance of the work that they do.
• How far do you agree?
• What criteria should be used to decide how much people are paid?
Use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and with relevant evidence.
You should write at least 250 words.
Version 1:
Brainstorming:
Disagree:
It is understandable for people in different occupations to have different incomes.
- For positions in academia or health care: jobs are not selective, not talent-based
- For those working in entertainment industry: competitive, short-lived career, high risks of bankruptcy and low job security à should be compensated financially
Factors: the value people create,+ the uniqueness of talent
- Compare the limited number of patients a doctor can treat with millions of fans at music festivals and movie goers at cinemas à entertainment workers bring value to more people
- Director, actors, CEO are rare commodities in market place à highly priced.
The essay:
On the surface, it seems unfair for the salary of some people such as teachers or doctors not to be on par with their counterparts in corporate managerial positions or in the entertainment industry. However, I believe the high payment of those bosses and artists is justifiable (có lý, chứng minh được), and the factors people should base on to calculate salary will clarify this claim.
It is completely understandable for people in different occupations to have different earnings. Although jobs in the academia and the healthcare sector are considered respectful ones in serving the humankind, they are not very selective or talent-based, so many people can do these jobs after serious education. In contrast, the competition in the entertainment world is undoubtedly very harsh (khắc nghiệt). Film directors and actors can achieve enormous (lớn) success, but that tip of the ice berg does not conceal the ugly truth of thousands of their colleagues struggle with unemployment. The short-lived career of these professionals and a plethora of (nhiều) problems of health, family, and love that are seemingly inherent (cố hữu, tự nhiên có) in the career is also a strong reason why they should be financially compensated (bồi thường). In a different angle, as for companies’ directors or business owners, their high income is proportional to (tương ứng với) the risks of low job security and bankruptcy as well as the immeasurable stress they endure.
As regards factors impacting a person’s earning, I believe the created value and the talent necessary for the job should be at the core of the consideration. Just by a quick comparison of the limited number of patients treated by a doctor and millions of fans grooving at a music festival or movie lovers queuing for a blockbuster (phim bom tấn) in cinemas around the world, it is apparent that entertainment works of art bring its value to far more people. Another factor that should be considered for deciding payment is the uniqueness of the talent involved in the work. If sport players, film directors, or chief executive officers are in their heyday (thời hoàng kim), it is just because they are very rare commodity in the job market, and they have competitive advantages (lợi thế cạnh tranh) over millions of others.
In conclusion, the matter of diverse income is naturally formed and accepted in the social convention (luật thường của xã hội); also, I believe it is based on the value people create and their talent.
Version 2:
The stratification of the job market in recent years has pushed traditional intellectuals like doctors and teachers into inferiority to film directors and corporate directors in terms of income. I believe this phenomenon is completely justified, and there are factors to soundly base the pay for individual workers on.
The earning gap between high and modest earners is actually following the natural rules. First, obviously, talented film actors and CEOs are the most sought after assets on the job market, unlike other popular jobs like doctors or teachers. Thanks to exclusive talent, those who work in the entertainment industry or business are the minority and thus the demand for them is inherently high. Moreover, in arts and business, perfectionism is worshiped, which encourages people to burn themselves in laborious work to create the perfect products or services at the admiration of customers. Therefore, the natural rule of the supply and demand is revealed in high earning of these high-priced workers.
To decide financial remuneration for an employee, I believe three main factors should be taken into consideration. The crucial determinant of the salary level is the importance of the job. Indeed, if the position holders substantially influence the whole organization with ultimate decisions or strategic competitive plans to keep the company abreast of their rivals, they are like captains of the ship and should be well-paid with incentives, commissions and generous benefit packages. The second criterion to base the pay on is the challenge of the job. For example, job security for a CEO of Yahoo corporation is extremely low when the position was overtaken by up to three people per year in the past. For such cases the rule of risk being proportional to return is applied. In addition, the history of employees’ contribution should be taken into consideration to make sure those with the most seniority and most dedication to the organization development will be appreciated and rewarded financially.
In summary, regardless of how much someone is paid, it is not a matter that needs our interference to adjust, but is a reflection of the usefulness the workers prove to offer. In the same train of thought, salary should be decided by the job’s importance, demand, and the worker’s seniority and devotion.
