A lesson in the mechanism of economic inequality is being enacted as workers for FairPoint Communications strike to stave off a major erosion of benefits and future wages.

It is a scenario that has taken a toll on the economic well-being of workers throughout the economy and in many parts of the nation. Workers watch as their standard of living is lowered in response to the demands of distant owners. If people are wondering where the wealth gap came from, here is a case study.

It’s not as if FairPoint is rolling in dough. In 2007 FairPoint took over the landline segment of Verizon’s business in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, and soon afterward, the company declared bankruptcy. It emerged from bankruptcy 18 months later, and now one of its principal owners is a hedge fund. Thus, it’s easy to see the present conflict as a bid to squeeze workers for the benefit of Wall Street, and there is some truth to that reading of the situation, though it is not as simple as that.

The company is still not making a profit. During the first two quarters of this year it lost $54 million. Somehow it has to get its operations in order so that it doesn’t go down the tubes again. And yet getting its operations in order might mean any of a number of things. It might mean squeezing the pay and benefits of workers for the benefit of shareholders. But it might also mean making the company a reliable provider of telecommunications in the three states, delivering a profit to its own owners while providing a decent, middle-class living for its workers.

And yet like many industries in a changing world FairPoint is facing challenges. The number of landlines has been dwindling as more and more households have come to rely on cellphones. FairPoint has responded by investing in new fiber optic cable. Like many industries — newspapers, for example — providers of landline service have had to adjust.

It is adjusting by demanding $700 million in givebacks from its workers. The workers have responded by agreeing to $200 million in reduced benefits. But FairPoint walked out of negotiations in August and has not been back.

To build sympathy for itself the company has noted that the average pay and benefits for workers is about $115,000 and the average annual paycheck is about $82,000. These numbers may sound inflated, provoking the resentment of workers who earn less, but the workers of the region ought to feel solidarity rather than resentment. FairPoint notes that pay and benefits for its workers is far above the median for the region, but when all pay is driven down to the median, the median will continually sink, and workers will grow even poorer throughout the economy.

In fact, FairPoint’s workers include many skilled technical workers for whom low pay is inappropriate and damaging to individual lives and the economy. At some point companies have to realize that investing in their workers is sound practice and it has interests beyond the demands of shareholders. For the sake of the U.S. economy a sound company must be seen as something more than one that has stripped its worker pay and benefits to the bone. A rich company is not just a company with a high stock price and a big dividend but one that supports workers and enriches its community.

It’s all a matter of balance. FairPoint has to survive economically, but workers have to be a part of the formula in order that society as a whole thrives. Companies that aim to break unions rather than find the proper balance are doing everyone a disservice. Already, reports of service problems have multiplied as FairPoint persists in rebuffing its workers. It has now stripped its striking workers of health benefits. And so the region becomes poorer and poorer.