The problem of the level of the salary in the modern world remains core in the economics in the condition of the free market. Considering the situation, when a famous movie star can earn as much as 60 million for a few weeks work, and a grade school teacher in Nebraska earns about 30,000 a year, the inequitable distribution of resources will be evaluated and the question will be answered whether the situation can be justified or not in the conditions of free market relations.
Being democratic county, government tries to care about people, who are occupied in the social professions, but still they usually care about the whole county’s economy, which turns teachers’ problem on the background (Haslett, 2001). The statistical evidences show that the standards of life have increased for all layers of population, if to look from the perspective of 2006. Moreover, during that year low- and middle class families’ life was improved dramatically, that is the rough statistics. Coming to practice, only wealthy people felt the improvements in their incomes, while other layers of the population remained on the same level, even if their standards improved, they did not feel that (Sherk, 2006).
Michael Novak (2004) stated that living in the democratic society with free economy, people are eager to provide their economic initiatives and imagination with the aim to get more financial profit. The cinematography and famous movie stars in particular, use their potential and imagination in activities to gain more profit. The center of the modern life became the care of the environment and many famous people began to consider it as the propaganda, as people, who see that stars care about our planet, begin to pay more money for their films (Hood, 1995).
The situation was discussed by Opitz (2004), who stressed that in the situation, where the star earns more per week that the teacher per year, the misunderstanding of the roles is introduced. The society has used to appreciate people, who appear on the screen, to pay money for their films, just for the opportunity to see them. The situation with teachers is different, as they are taken for granted and there is no any necessity, as society thinks, to appreciate highly his/her work. Living in the era of capitalism, the profit became one of the main priorities for the businessmen, and profit and altruism are the notions which may never live side by side. The era of capitalism feeds those, who care about their own profit (Haag, 2000). This is unfair, but it is the current state of affairs, and the teachers will always be on the second place, as his/her actions do not show their desire for money.
Robert Rector (2007) tried to explain, if to look on the American society in general, that the level of their life is high, but if to shape the whole society on classes, it becomes understood that this high level is counted by means of the salaries of famous people, and simple people are not taken into account almost. What Rector (2007) wanted to say is that in general, the life of simple people is on the very low level and it is unfair. Being of the same importance to the society, sometimes even higher, teachers get fewer attitudes to their profession and less payment for that (Prindle, 2006), that is the main paradox of the society.
The socialism country regime could have improved the position of the teachers in the world, but at the same time, the entrepreneurship would have been reduced to minimum if not destroyed. The socialism is impossible, as Ebeling (2007) says, and it is impossible to disagree with it, even if it could improve the situation with balancing teachers’ and film stars’ salaries. The central planning economy, during the socialism regime, could also improve the position of teachers and other social workers, but the country could never be on the same economical level, and with the reduction of private entrepreneurship would reduce. The case with Pilgrim is also the introduction of unselfishness, which is discussed by Patton (2002) in detail and is one of the examples of the socialism in action. The story is sad, and the confirmation that socialism will never work is provided, even if to use it in the direction to the improvement of the financial position of simple teachers.
Russell Roberts (2002) dwells upon the free market and its dishonesty. Free, self- regulated market will never function just, especially in reference to the existing social professions. Teachers are eager to work, but in the free market relations, teachers will get less money as the competence will be provided in the spheres, where the income from the business is higher. The same opinion belongs to Gregg (2003), who considers it as unfair and dwells upon morality, which will never come along with profit and market relations where income is on the first place.
In conclusion, the free marker system and the competition relations in the society will never come across altruism, which belongs to the profession of teachers. The famous movie star will always get more money as she want to get more, as the market, where she functions is the profitable and that profit is the main consideration of modern people. The situation is unjust, and the only decision which could be is the appliance of socialism, but this is impossible, as it was proved. The roles and priorities of the whole society should be reoriented and in this case the importance of the teachers will be paid more.
Ebeling, R. (2007). Why Socialism Is Impossible. The Freeman. Web.
Gregg, S. (2003/2004). Markets, Morality, and Civil Society. THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, 23-30.
Haag, E. (2000-01). The Hostility of Intellectuals to Capitalism. THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, 56-63.
Haslett D. W. (2001). Capitalism with morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hood, J. (1995). How Green Was My Balance Sheet: The Environmental Benefits of Capitalism. Policy Review, (74), 80-91.
Novak, M. (2004). Wealth & Virtue: The moral case for capitalism. NRO. Web.
Opitz, E. A. (2004). Business and Ethics. The Freeman, 54(1). Web.
Patton, J. W. (2002). The Pilgrim Story: Vital Insights And Lessons For Today. Free republic. Web.
Prindle, D. F. (2006). The paradox of democratic capitalism: politics and economics in American thought. JHU Press, New York.
Rector, R. (2007). How Poor Are America’s Poor? Examining the “Plague” of Poverty in America. The Heritage Foundation. Web.
Roberts, R. (2002). The Pursuit of Happiness – Enron Lessons. The Freeman, 52(6). Web.
Sherk, J. (2006). Shared Prosperity: Debunking Pessimistic Claims About Wages, Profits, and Wealth. The Heritage Foundation. Web.