If you think you're underpaid, get a better job, and stop crying about those who make more than you!

In that case, you understand the concept of the buy-sell spread. An employer may be willing to pay a certain amount for a job, but would obviously prefer to pay less. An employee would be willing to work for a certain wage, but would obviously prefer to work for more. If the employee is willing to work for the same amount or less than the employer is willing to pay, then (assuming both parties are rational and self-interested) both will be better off with the job being offered and taken. If the employer is not willing to pay as much as the employee requires, then there will be no hire because somebody would be worse off. The interesting part and where liberals tend to get hung up on fairness is when the employee would be willing to work for less, perhaps much less than the employer is willing to pay. Neither party can really know the other party's bottom line unless one elects to tell the other. So the market brings together prospective employees with employers who wish to hire. If there is a large number of jobs and applicants, then the ,market is liquid and it is pretty easy to settle on a price. Collective bargaining can actually help with this. But just because there is a spread and the final price isn't exactly halfway between the employer's top offer and the employee's bottom acceptance, doesn't mean it isn't a fair wage. If both parties are better off, then it is fair to both. It is not necessary for both to be "equally" better off (if that was even possible to measure or know) for it to be fair.

Probably, in most cases, because government is discouraging people and businesses from hiring. Sometimes there are unfortunate choices made by those who are preparing themselves as prospective employees in the job market. What is valued as a skill tends to draw higher prices and attract more people trying to develop those skills until there is a surplus. Them the bottom falls out. This has been seen with engineers and scientists in the aerospace industry. Government decides to go whole hog in space (NASA) hires many engineers and scientists and wants more, so salaries rise. People start to go into aerospace majors and suddenly there are plenty of qualified employees, but government decides to spend less on aerospace and more for social workers or tax auditors. Now there is a surplus of qualified engineers and a shortage of jobs. So people decide to enter other fields and develop themselves in other directions. Some skill sets are more cyclic with respect to supply and demand than others. Unfortunately, school counselors, who are supposed to advise kids on career opportunities, seem to be more uninformed than anybody. It isn't just government that influences job needs and pay scales. Automation and demographics can have an effect. And in the information age, where many jobs can be done anywhere in the world with simply Internet and telephone access, these kinds of risks are very real. But it is unlikely that government is going to help and certainly not by encouraging people to go on the dole or by taxing and regulating and penalizing domestic companies into non-competitiveness or bankruptcy.

The main goal of any Corporation, Company or Business is not the employment of people, it is to provide a service, product or both at a competitive price, and in doing so make enough of a profit to give a good return to their Investors (so that they will continue to invest) and maintain a high salary for the Company Executives who have in most cases were responsible for the growth and success of the Company. In the case of privately owned Companies, the Owner has every right to make as much money as he desires for taking the chance of starting and maintaining a Business.

Unless the Corporation, Company or Business pay their employees on a shared profit program, there is no “piece of the pie”.. there is only a $1.00 pay for a $1.00 worth of work, and promotions are given based on performance and loyalty.

Labor unions are for insecure employees who depend on paid union negotiators to force Companies to pay $3.00 (plus outrageous benefits) for every $1.00 worth of work for everyone whether they are producers or slackers. That brings the point.. shouldn't a union member be more pissed off at their union lords for securing the same pay for the slacker standing next to them and who is only putting out 70% while they are busting their butt at 100%? to make matters worse, the union worker putting out 100% can get laid off first if the 70% slacker has a month seniority on them.

Labor unions are a crutch for those slackers lacking the ambition and are so insecure that they are satisfied doing the same task day in and day out, paying other people to negotiate their salary and benefits, and just hanging in there until they get their overblown retirement.

My personal story is like many.. I started out with a Company in 1970 as a Bench Technician, and worked (operative word “worked”) my way up to Senior Engineering Manager up to my retirement in 2004 at the age of 58.

Despite the fact that the Obama administration and labor unions are forcing Companies to cut back or close down left and right, there are still Companies out there who are in search of good loyal employees who are willing to start at entrance salary and then prove their worth and work their way up.

Just keep in mind the real goal of Business, and not the maxcist perceived goal that employees are deserving of more than they are worth.. “$1.00 pay for $1.00 worth of work” should be the rule for any Employer, anything less is not acceptable.

And if a “worker” feels that he or she is getting a raw deal from their employer, then they can simply find a job where their skills are more appreciated.

The big problem with today's society is that people (especially union employees) think a job is a right.. no where that I can find is that written. If as you say, it should be the goal for every worker to make as much money as they can, then they better work hard enough to earn it, not demand it through some type of group negotiation.

You stated in another answer that you were an investor (and a stock broker), so you should know that if it were not for us, most Businesses would not be able to get off the ground. I don't know about you, but when I invest $20K to $50K of my hard earned money in a venture, I expect a damned good return on my investment, especially since the government takes 10%-15% of those returns (even though I already paid taxes on the money I invested).

If one of my ventures is loosing money because of employees not pulling their weight, I cease to invest in that Business until they rectify the situation.

I was a Manufacturing Process Engineer for a time with the Company I retired from, and part of my assignment was to review not only the vendors and shops that supplied us with components and sub assemblies, but to review and adjust our own manufacturing process to make it more efficient.

The Assemblers and Technicians knew that their jobs were on the line, and made darned sure that they worked hard to keep their job. Of course I was with a non union Company, so unlike union shops, job performance and loyalty was everything. When I saw that all the employees in my charge were as productive as they could be, I made sure that they stayed. The slackers were replaced with employees who could perform up to our standards.

Employment is not a right, it's a privilege, and employers should have at their discretion to either employ or not employ those who will make their Business prosperous. Truthfully, if I were a Business Owner, I would look for every chance to replace a human being with automation or robotics. If a person wants a job, let them learn the skills to maintain that equipment.