In countries some countries, a few people earn extremely high salaries. Some people think that is good for a country, while others believe that the government should control salaries and limit the amount people can earn. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Competition for lucrative remuneration is a social rivalry. Nowadays, there is a social conflict whether wage could be a beneficial contribution for a country or should it be limited to a certain

amount

.

This

essay will discuss both sides of the argument in-depth. In the contemporary world, there are many white-collar employees in blue-chip companies who earn a lucrative income.

However

,these high ranked position holders are the cornerstones of a company their hard work and dedication could lead to high productivity and outcomes while

this

could indirectly bolster the economy of a country.

Therefore

, in order to motivate employees,they should be rewarded with pay increments.

On the other hand

, having different salary ranges will ultimately lead to a social dispute, whereas,

this

could lead to social influence and minor employees will never be able to collect their satisfying

amount

of pay.

As a result

of

this

,a rich and poor concept will rise to make the space between these two ranks of society to be gigantic.

Thus

, it would be an appropriate initiative if the government and affiliated authorities could get involved to solve

this

in-equality and to have a salary control and limit the

amount

of money a person can earn. To conclude, the social argument was held on the

amount

of wage a person can earn. Undoubtedly, having a big remuneration will contribute to a countries economy despite the in-equality the master brains of a working place should be rewarded financially. I believe that employees payment rates increments have a plethora of positivity including support to uplift the country's GDP