It’s the whole “2 business strategies” playing out in the labor market- either you differentiate yourself and raise your own price, or you’re in the lowest cost provider game.
Differentiating one’s self means having education and experience, and using those to figure out where in the market you land. In general, companies are unlikely to intentionally pay much more than necessary for the job they want done, but some jobs command higher salaries than others. Sometimes, companies will pay a premium for someone above and beyond what their job title would indicate- experience is usually the determinant here.
If you’re not differentiating yourself very much, or very effectively, you’re a product that corporations look at as fungible and a commodity; like a bar of soap or a sack of flour. They want to hire you for as little as they possibly can, because in their view, it’s throwing money down the toilet and they can always find someone just like you to do that job for that amount.
Clearly Harvard’s paying an appropriate wage (in terms of what the market will bear) if they have enough cafeteria workers to run the cafeteria efficiently. If it was too low, they’d lose workers to better-paying competition in the labor market. If it was higher, it’s unlikely that it would make much difference to the sales of meal plans, the quality of the food, or the service. So why pay more, or so the conventional thinking goes.
Some companies have found that paying more pays dividends in customer service and motivation- Costco, In-n-Out, and Wal-Mart, of all places have done this with great success.
Ultimately though; it’s not an obligation on the part of companies. It’s a smart thing to do to pay above market- you get better workers and the effects compound on themselves.
On the subject of profit sharing and stockholders, etc…
The big thing is the assumption of risk. That’s the thing that the “fuck the shareholders” crowd doesn’t ever get. Stockholders are essentially risking their money on the assumption that the company will be profitable. They lose money if it’s not profitable.
Meanwhile, Joe Worker isn’t risking anything financial by working there. Barring a total collapse of the company, he’s going to be paid his wage for doing his job, even if the company loses money that quarter (or year or whatever). So the stockholders are gambling in a sense, and the workers aren’t. They get paid regardless, within the boundaries of normal business.
So if a company posts a small loss, without it being any kind of threat of layoffs or anything to the company, the shareholders not only didn’t make money, but literally lost money. The workers get paid though- they assumed no financial risk. That’s why the shareholders get the profit- they assume the risk.
Yes, the company runs on the workers’ labor, but they’re compensated for that labor. Profit is what’s left over AFTER they’re paid, and other expenses are met. Profit sharing is a smart thing to do, I believe, but it’s not mandatory, and sometimes it may not even make sense.
