Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of people that don't understand it in the west as well. It's also not as easy as some people make it sound. After all, it's the perceived value of both parties making the trade and not the actual value that's important.
Is there a difference though? If I perceive a “perceived” value, who perceives the “actual” value? Spreadsheets?
As such, the actually valuable work with high danger, which should've been paid appropriately is significantly underpaid.
/edit: maybe its easier to relate in the context of the tech industry... while it has significantly less impact on the employees live its prevalent there as well, and in both directions.
fresh graduates which get less then a third of a full employee while still producing basically the same value to the employer. (this obviously depends on the graduate, but surely everyone knows that people at the start of their career tend to be significantly underpaid). both the graduate and the employer just don't perceive their work to be as valuable.
its just as easy to find the pendulum swinging in the other direction as well... people which might even effectively sabotage the work of others while still looking perfect to the person paying the bill, essentially increasing their perceived value to the person paying the bill while effectively reducing the actual throughput/quality.