This post discusses the how price hike by any company should translate into advantages for its employees (notably those in middle-income bracket and the low-income group).
The recent changes in taxi fare spur me to such thoughts. If price hike doesn’t result in better quality and service, what is the justification of the hike? Ultimately, consumers are the one paying.
Let’s assume there is no improvement in quality and service, the extra profits should go into the pockets of the employees who are not in high income bracket. Let me quote an analogy using a particular company, ABC, providing food to consumers. The hawker in this case usually belongs to Middle-Class or lower-income group. For the people in middle – class (& lower-income group), it may be said that they are hugely affected by recession. This is especially true in Singapore where the prices of housing, even HDB, are rocketing. Price hike should aim to benefit these groups of employee. It is ridiculous for high income group (eg. CEO) in the company to take the share of the price hike! They already have cars and private housing! What else do they need? Another car? Or another luxurious private house when the middle class or lower-income group in the company may have problem affording/paying their HDB?
Thus, the government should look into such loopholes in the system. Such loopholes would only widen the income gap between the rich and the poor.
Just a thought from ethical point of view.
