Socialism

The Case for Socialism: Anyone can work to their full extent but not receive the same compensation.

This is because we live in a market economy. There are some occupations that pay more because the scarcity of those workers. Professionals have the highest human capital in our society, and they rightfully deserve to be rewarded for their valuable skill sets. Others are paid so little, because their occupations have few barriers to entry.

That said, any one can work to their full extent, and still not be compensated. Imagine some mine worker working 12 hours of physical work. That is more physically and mentally demanding than some professional working in an office building. And yet, even though that mine worker is busting his balls everyday, he will never live to see a 200k salary, unless he advances up the corporate ladder.

My point, people can work as hard they can, but they will never see a "fair" compensation of their work because of market-dependent wages. I'd imagine socialism to correct this "social injustice"; it is to acknowledge everyone has the fundamentally right to be compensated "fairly" for their work done. Our lives are more important than what the market tell us.

 

tl;dr: If everyone is born not equal, why should those less talented be paid the lowest denominator? Efficient yes, humane, no.

Socialism can be applied as gradient. Communism which sought a common wage, failed. Socialist ideas still remain as taxes and a people’s government which is more efficient at serving the needs of the people, than individual entities.

===

Edit. After reading a few posts, and hearing about your idea that it's a choice for workers to do a particular job.

I'd object. As much as it may sound, I believe most people don't want to do that jobs, but continue so to remain independent. The lessened "unpleasantness" of an occupation might steer others away and hike up the salary, but in the real world, where everyone (globally) is competing for a job, supply will outstrip demand. People will work for the lowest denominator for the worst job in the word, just because there is a job. Remember, there is more supply of the unemployed than there are jobs. They will compete for the lowest paying wage.

Example. Coal mining. Hard work. Coal needs workers. Workers need jobs. Workers will work no matter what, if they are poor. Wages party determined by revenue efficiency. If you can do more with less money than, you're more competitive in a market. Well if you can cut wages that would inspire all other coal companies to cut wages to remain competitive. Will that drive away workers, yes. Will there still be workers to use? Yes. Why? because there are more people in need of work than jobs available. Will the wage of miners fall to a market level, yes? Do the wages reflect the physical output of the work, no.