Sorry I've been away for quite a while, I just needed a break to prevent my brain from burning out.
"Equal opportunity means parity in pay. Everyone should not earn the same amount of money, but it's ridiculous to see an athlete earning tens of millions of dollars in a single year while the average household income is slightly more than $50,000."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the previous statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take.
In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement may or may not hold true and explain
how those considerations shape your position.
I partially agree with the given statement. I believe that it is right to assume and state that equal oppurtunity should mean equal pay,
However that equal pay is only acceptable under certain conditions, and fail if external factors are not properly considered, which I
will elaborate in my argument.
It is congenial to say that equal oppurtunity should mean equal, or at least similiar, wages. Since Jobs of equal stature, regardless
of where or within what entity the post is, usually entails prerequisite of knowledge or skill, equal responsibilty, and so on. Since the
burden entailed is the same, the wage should be the same as well. Also, it is justifiable that oppurtunities which are not equal should
differ in payment as well. Since the burden of two different posts may be completely different. If this is the case, then people having
two different oppurtunities should be paid differently.
However, equal opputunity does not necessarily mean that the parity in payment should always be maintained. Let us suppose there
are two people in the same position in a company. Both people have the same qualifications and shoulder the same burden. However,
If one person out-performs the other, or does overtime, or a combination of both, then the more productive person deserves a better pay
for bringing in contributing more to the body he/she works for, even though both people have the same oppurtunity.
Another reason why parity cannot sometimes be maintained is due to the fact that different commodities and services have different demands.
It is ubiquitous that some things simply sell far better than others. As such, it is illogical to simply assert that people of similar stature, regardless
of who or what they work for, should receive equal pay simply due to the burden. Cellphones may sell better than caviar.And therefore, it is
justifiable that workers in the cellphone industry earn more than the caviar firm/industry counterparts.
Considering the example given in the statement and using the argument from the aforementioned paragraph, it is perfectly acceptable that a
sportsman earns way more than the average household. A sportsman gets paid a lot by sponsors, simply because sponsors are able to sell
their entertainment so well. A sportsman gets a number of product endorsement and advertisement offers, which generate additional revenue.
For example - The eyes of the world are on players whenever an important football match is going on, and anyone who watches TV or uses the
internet can see that players get contracted for advertisement. Whereas the breadwinner from an average household simply works at a single job,
probably something that hundreds of people work at as well, has no product endorsement or anything similar.
Therefore, all in all, it is not equal oppurtunity that should equate to equal pay. But rather, pay is something that is more dependent on being
able to sell, being able to contribute and above all being productive. If two entities are equal in all these regards, only then may it be correct
to say the qual oppurtunity is tantamount to parity in payment.
"Equal opportunity means parity in pay. Everyone should not earn the same amount of money, but it's ridiculous to see an athlete earning tens of millions of dollars in a single year while the average household income is slightly more than $50,000."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the previous statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take.
In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement may or may not hold true and explain
how those considerations shape your position.
I partially agree with the given statement. I believe that it is right to assume and state that equal oppurtunity should mean equal pay,
However that equal pay is only acceptable under certain conditions, and fail if external factors are not properly considered, which I
will elaborate in my argument.
It is congenial to say that equal oppurtunity should mean equal, or at least similiar, wages. Since Jobs of equal stature, regardless
of where or within what entity the post is, usually entails prerequisite of knowledge or skill, equal responsibilty, and so on. Since the
burden entailed is the same, the wage should be the same as well. Also, it is justifiable that oppurtunities which are not equal should
differ in payment as well. Since the burden of two different posts may be completely different. If this is the case, then people having
two different oppurtunities should be paid differently.
However, equal opputunity does not necessarily mean that the parity in payment should always be maintained. Let us suppose there
are two people in the same position in a company. Both people have the same qualifications and shoulder the same burden. However,
If one person out-performs the other, or does overtime, or a combination of both, then the more productive person deserves a better pay
for bringing in contributing more to the body he/she works for, even though both people have the same oppurtunity.
Another reason why parity cannot sometimes be maintained is due to the fact that different commodities and services have different demands.
It is ubiquitous that some things simply sell far better than others. As such, it is illogical to simply assert that people of similar stature, regardless
of who or what they work for, should receive equal pay simply due to the burden. Cellphones may sell better than caviar.And therefore, it is
justifiable that workers in the cellphone industry earn more than the caviar firm/industry counterparts.
Considering the example given in the statement and using the argument from the aforementioned paragraph, it is perfectly acceptable that a
sportsman earns way more than the average household. A sportsman gets paid a lot by sponsors, simply because sponsors are able to sell
their entertainment so well. A sportsman gets a number of product endorsement and advertisement offers, which generate additional revenue.
For example - The eyes of the world are on players whenever an important football match is going on, and anyone who watches TV or uses the
internet can see that players get contracted for advertisement. Whereas the breadwinner from an average household simply works at a single job,
probably something that hundreds of people work at as well, has no product endorsement or anything similar.
Therefore, all in all, it is not equal oppurtunity that should equate to equal pay. But rather, pay is something that is more dependent on being
able to sell, being able to contribute and above all being productive. If two entities are equal in all these regards, only then may it be correct
to say the qual oppurtunity is tantamount to parity in payment.
