This is not meant to offend, but your response is essentially socialist in nature. If we keep this discussion within the capitalist framework, then the proper salary is simply $1 more than a competitor is willing to pay said employee. Thus it is arguable that this particular employee was extremely overpaid.
Fine. Yes, the socialist response is that a worker should control what they produce -- a collection of workers together would democraticly control what they create together.
So sure, the socialist argument (or more accurately the labor theory of value) is that a worker (variable capital) produces some value and is then paid a wage for that value which is less than said value. This difference is the surplus value, some of which is used to pay for upkeep or new machinery (constant capital), pay capitalists and some becomes capital for future investment.
If a worker is from India or lives in India and produces the same value as one born or lives in the US they deserve the same share.
Of course, as I said, the real socialist position is not getting a share of what they produce and the rest being controlled by a capitalist but instead collectively what is surplus and how to use it.
The capitalist response is to say you don't deserve the same share (and especially not the full value), thus making the surplus value larger.
> This is not meant to offend, but your response is essentially socialist in nature.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'm not sure I agree, anyway. Paying people according to the sales value they create leads to pretty unequal outcomes; janitors, clerks, and other unrespected jobs may be forced to scrape by on less than a living wage. Sounds a lot like capitalism!
Not necessarily, but a janitor should be paid a living wage. It's very easy to imagine an executive declaring that any employee who doesn't produce quantifiable profits should get peanuts. (Or "minimum wage," which is not a living wage in most of the US.)
