NationStates Jolt Archive

In my country (USA), a common belief is that the value of work should be reflected in the amount of pay somebody receives for doing that work. However, I think most of us will agree that this often doesn't happen in practice.

So if you could put your personal values into practice, which job(s) do you think should pay the most?

I'm including a poll with some of the options I can think of off the top of my head, but there are really so many possible answers that I'm guessing "other" is going to win the poll.

You also have to take into account the cost of the education needed to attain a given profession.

Mine.

But seriously, I've often thought that street cleaners, sewage workers, dustbin men, that kind of thing, should be paid the most.

Well, if we're going to pay people different amounts, doctors and teachers should make the most.

Those which are in most demand, and I'm not one to know which one the market demands the most. I'm a political scientist, not an economist.

Mine.

But seriously, I've often thought that street cleaners, sewage workers, dustbin men, that kind of thing, should be paid the most.

on the other hand they need almost no training and it's almost no responsibility (in comparison with for instance a brainsurgeon for instance)

In my country (USA), a common belief is that the value of work should be reflected in the amount of pay somebody receives for doing that work. However, I think most of us will agree that this often doesn't happen in practice.

So if you could put your personal values into practice, which job(s) do you think should pay the most?

I'm including a poll with some of the options I can think of off the top of my head, but there are really so many possible answers that I'm guessing "other" is going to win the poll.

Ohhh I likethis one.

I'm in complete agrement with CD here.

I think the shittest jobs, the ones that nobody wants to do should be paid the most, the clearners, road sweepers, hospital porters, dish washes, waiters etc..

on the other hand they need almost no training and it's almost no responsibility (in comparison with for instance a brainsurgeon for instance)

That is true, but I don't see what differance that makes? If your job means you are up to the neck ins hit all day, then it is only humane that your pay reflect this.

on the other hand they need almost no training and it's almost no responsibility (in comparison with for instance a brainsurgeon for instance)

Indeed. But I wouldn't do those jobs unless I got paid substantially more than I get paid for sitting on my arse in my living room, idly programming away, so why should anybody else?

I also don't think that politicians et al should be paid more than minimum wage, because the money isn't the reason you should take those jobs. Whining you could be paid more in the private sector? Good! Go work in the private sector, then!

That is true, but I don't see what differance that makes? If your job means you are up to the neck ins hit all day, then it is only humane that your pay reflect this.
Being a doctor can get pretty damn gross, for whatever that's worth.

The ones with the biggest responsability. And fortunaly, it is what happens in real life.

The CEO of a big company makes decisions that may affect the life of thousands of workers, millions or billions worth in goods, and the investment of dozens of investors that are paying him to make them profit.

A renowed actor stands as the popular icon which will make millions of people go see the movie that took 6 months to be prepared and 100 million dollars in investment.

An american football player has to do the play that will earn him the victory, a good game and make thousands of people watch it, buy goods from the team, eat things at the stadium, earn sponsors for the team and for himself, and make sure people watch the game on TV so that broadcast companies can get good money out of specially placed TV comercials and advertises.

So, capitalism works as its suposed to be, and works wonderfully. Its all about money, and it cant work in other ways unless you stop capitalism.

Street cleaners deserve a lot? No, they dont. Anyone can do their jobs, and their jobs are pretty damn easy. You work for 8 hours and go home without any worry in your mind. A CEO works 24/7. An actor has to keep his public image alive and undamaged all the times, and worry about paparazzi. An athlete has to worry about his physical condition 24/7, eat only what is needed, endure constant pain, long training, exaustion and failure, because there can be only one first place.

That is true, but I don't see what differance that makes? If your job means you are up to the neck ins hit all day, then it is only humane that your pay reflect this.

And it's also vitally important those jobs are done... The doctors would certainly be much busier if they weren't.

on the other hand they need almost no training and it's almost no responsibility (in comparison with for instance a brainsurgeon for instance)

Agreed. Brain surgeons, for example, spend the better part of a decade in school, drawing virtually no salary during this time, usually going into massive debt. They are rewarded for putting in all the extra effort by going into a field with a very limited pool of potential employees, but with extremely high demand. Thus, they get paid lots of money.

I also don't think that politicians et al should be paid more than minimum wage, because the money isn't the reason you should take those jobs. Whining you could be paid more in the private sector? Good! Go work in the private sector, then!

Politicians must be paid much more than the average citizen. Why? Because they have power. And if they have power, they have responsability. If they have responsability, they should feel they are earning enough for that.

ANYONE that has too much responsability and feels he is working more than he is getting payed for is more inclined to corruption. If someone can give you 300.000 dollars to accept a new law, while you get 5.000/month, you really is prone to be corrupted.

That is why judges usually get very high payments. For many reasons:
- If being well paid, the judge is less prone to corruption, since the offered money isnt that impressed compared to his own pay check.
- A judge has to make important decisions on a daily basis, dealing with the lives and future of many people, sometimes even including criminals. He must have a clean mind and no big worries besides the ones he gets in the courtyard. That is why he must get enough money so that all his needs are fulfilled, his family has the best avaiable, his financial and health safety can be assured and all his needs and desires are met ASAP so he can focus on being as unparcial as possible when in courth.

I say we pay the lazy college students the most money. We actually need it :p

I say we pay the lazy college students the most money. We actually need it :p
Crap, I totally should have put that one on there! We DO need it, dammit! :D

An actor has to keep his public image alive and undamaged all the times, and worry about paparazzi.

Oh the pain, those cameras!

Why people do worry about having running water?, they do not know anything about the perils of fame! Starvation is nothing is contrast with all those people trying to get my intimate video. The nice part is..."That's hot", in anycase. :rolleyes:

ANYONE that has too much responsability and feels he is working more than he is getting payed for is more inclined to corruption. If someone can give you 300.000 dollars to accept a new law, while you get 5.000/month, you really is prone to be corrupted.

You raise a good point, there: Humans are greedy. (Although I wouldn't moan if I were paid the equivalent of $5k per month, that's well over twice what I earn now.)

But if someone is so motivated by money, wouldn't they be more inclined to go and take a higher-paying job in the first place? Or maybe they can't get a higher-paying job, in which case surely the Market gods dictate that they're not worth that much to begin with?

Politicians must be paid much more than the average citizen. Why? Because they have power. And if they have power, they have responsability. If they have responsability, they should feel they are earning enough for that.

ANYONE that has too much responsability and feels he is working more than he is getting payed for is more inclined to corruption. If someone can give you 300.000 dollars to accept a new law, while you get 5.000/month, you really is prone to be corrupted.

That is why judges usually get very high payments. For many reasons:
- If being well paid, the judge is less prone to corruption, since the offered money isnt that impressed compared to his own pay check.
- A judge has to make important decisions on a daily basis, dealing with the lives and future of many people, sometimes even including criminals. He must have a clean mind and no big worries besides the ones he gets in the courtyard. That is why he must get enough money so that all his needs are fulfilled, his family has the best avaiable, his financial and health safety can be assured and all his needs and desires are met ASAP so he can focus on being as unparcial as possible when in courth.

Since politicians are public servants, I believe that their pay should be determined by the public for the job they do. Give them some motivation to actually work, or seek employment elsewhere.

Politicians must be paid much more than the average citizen. Why? Because they have power. And if they have power, they have responsability. If they have responsability, they should feel they are earning enough for that.

ANYONE that has too much responsability and feels he is working more than he is getting payed for is more inclined to corruption. If someone can give you 300.000 dollars to accept a new law, while you get 5.000/month, you really is prone to be corrupted.

That is why judges usually get very high payments. For many reasons:
- If being well paid, the judge is less prone to corruption, since the offered money isnt that impressed compared to his own pay check.
- A judge has to make important decisions on a daily basis, dealing with the lives and future of many people, sometimes even including criminals. He must have a clean mind and no big worries besides the ones he gets in the courtyard. That is why he must get enough money so that all his needs are fulfilled, his family has the best avaiable, his financial and health safety can be assured and all his needs and desires are met ASAP so he can focus on being as unparcial as possible when in courth.



Bwahahah no what happens is that power corrupts and no amount of money stops that. I sah pay polictians below minimun wage, and make is on aprt time, maybe jobshared bais, with not one single benifit. Then we will only get those that want to do the job doing it.

Oh the pain, those cameras!

Why people do worry about having running water?, they do not know anything about the perils of fame! Starvation is nothing is contrast with all those people trying to get my intimate video. The nice part is..."That's hot", in anycase. :rolleyes:

Dude, they are the only ones that can. I sure wouldnt be able to do a movie and make millions of people watch it.

And do you think fame is easy? You cant get out of your house without 5 bodyguards and 100 cameras watching your footsteps. You have to sacrifice a lot of things you cant do. Easy? Look at Britney Spears.

Bwahahah no what happens is that power corrupts and no amount of money stops that. I sah pay polictians below minimun wage, and make is on aprt time, maybe jobshared bais, with not one single benifit. Then we will only get those that want to do the job doing it.

Better yet, make the politician's salary the exact average for the region he represents; that'll motivate him to raise it. :)

A renowed actor stands as the popular icon which will make millions of people go see the movie that took 6 months to be prepared and 100 million dollars in investment.

An american football player has to do the play that will earn him the victory, a good game and make thousands of people watch it, buy goods from the team, eat things at the stadium, earn sponsors for the team and for himself, and make sure people watch the game on TV so that broadcast companies can get good money out of specially placed TV comercials and advertises.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not these parts.

Remove the actors, and the film industry goes to pot, obviously. However, there are other forms of entertainment - people will get over it. Similarly in sport - remove the football players, and the football 'industry' goes to pot. But again, there are other sports, other forms of entertainment.

Now try removing the doctors - people will die.
Now try removing the sanitation workers - rubbish piles up, sewage goes untreated, disease becomes rife - people die.

No one's going to die if no more films are made, or no more football is played.

Dude, they are the only ones that can. I sure wouldnt be able to do a movie and make millions of people watch it.

And do you think fame is easy? You cant get out of your house without 5 bodyguards and 100 cameras watching your footsteps. You have to sacrifice a lot of things you cant do. Easy? Look at Britney Spears.

If it's that bad, they can always spend their fortunes on some plastic surgery to make them unrecognisable and go work twelve-hour shifts in a factory.

Bwahahah no what happens is that power corrupts and no amount of money stops that. I sah pay polictians below minimun wage, and make is on aprt time, maybe jobshared bais, with not one single benifit. Then we will only get those that want to do the job doing it.

Yes, money will corrupt anything. But they wont get corrupted because a street thug told they are willing to pay 300 bucks to let them loose.

Bwahahah no what happens is that power corrupts and no amount of money stops that. I sah pay polictians below minimun wage, and make is on aprt time, maybe jobshared bais, with not one single benifit. Then we will only get those that want to do the job doing it.
I'd say we'll end up chasing away a lot of people who want the job, if we do things this way.

Real people have concrete, pragmatic concerns in their lives. They've got families to help support. They've got bills to pay. If you make politics a shitty-paying field with no benefits, then you basically are chasing away anybody who has to work for a living and support their family. You make politics a job that only the very rich can afford to pursue.

As many probably know on here I operate a few business and have had a variety in the past. The way I look at employee compensation is this. An employee is only worth as much as the amount of income that employee produces and or saved by that employee. It does not matter to me how much school that employee has gone through. I have wait staff with college degrees. I have sales people in my insurance office that have a high school diploma.

If an employee does not produce results in the insurance business they do not get paid. That is basically how that industry works. With the restaurant I do have to look at the group as a whole because of how they work together to produce a product. The wait staff is minimum wage because of there tips. The management and support staff are a percentage of the operating profit. The support staff get paid differently as I see fit. The harder working ones I do pay more per hour. The management staff do get bonuses if sales are good. However as a group they only can raise their base pays if operational profit goes up. So I have to be careful how I divide up that slice of the pie.

You raise a good point, there: Humans are greedy. (Although I wouldn't moan if I were paid the equivalent of $5k per month, that's well over twice what I earn now.)

But if someone is so motivated by money, wouldn't they be more inclined to go and take a higher-paying job in the first place? Or maybe they can't get a higher-paying job, in which case surely the Market gods dictate that they're not worth that much to begin with?

In theory, yes. But (un)fortunaly, after you become 20 or so, your morality really starts to sink. I´m not saying you become a monster, but your morals really become a lot looser.

And when that happens, you really stop caring. If you can get money in a easy way, you will probabily accept it. You may moan, feel guilty, feel ashamed, but if its a huge sum of money, and you dont need to do a lot for it, you will do it.

So yes, you can go find another job. YOu can work harder for it. But between working harder hours and with more responsability and getting more money for doing almost nothing, I would say 9 out of 10 people (and this is a shameless estimate) will go for the easier work, less time and more pay option.

That is true, but I don't see what differance that makes? If your job means you are up to the neck ins hit all day, then it is only humane that your pay reflect this.

yeah, but have you got any idea what it costs to become a brain surgeon? it's also very hard to become one, wich means there are less people who can become a brain surgeon wich means there are to little brain surgeons (or docters in general) and that's where ther market kicks in.

Indeed. But I wouldn't do those jobs unless I got paid substantially more than I get paid for sitting on my arse in my living room, idly programming away, so why should anybody else?


some people can't program and since they want to make at least some money they have to take icky jobs.

Medicine. Difficult, intellectual, a huge level of responsibility, stressful, at times particularly disgusting - and yet a crucial skill for any civilised community.

I'd say we'll end up chasing away a lot of people who want the job, if we do things this way.

Real people have concrete, pragmatic concerns in their lives. They've got families to help support. They've got bills to pay. If you make politics a shitty-paying field with no benefits, then you basically are chasing away anybody who has to work for a living and support their family. You make politics a job that only the very rich can afford to pursue.

Exactly right.

In theory, yes. But (un)fortunaly, after you become 20 or so, your morality really starts to sink. I´m not saying you become a monster, but your morals really become a lot looser.

And when that happens, you really stop caring. If you can get money in a easy way, you will probabily accept it. You may moan, feel guilty, feel ashamed, but if its a huge sum of money, and you dont need to do a lot for it, you will do it.

Hahaha, yes. I thought it was just me, but I've definitely noticed my "morals", such as they were, going away over the last few years.
Which is why I'd suggest corruption is punished very harshly. Death for the corruptors and the corruptee, and make sure you catch them. Mortal fear is an even more powerful motivating influence than greed :)

Since politicians are public servants, I believe that their pay should be determined by the public for the job they do. Give them some motivation to actually work, or seek employment elsewhere.

That is how things should work in a perfect society. But our society isnt perfect.

For example, in Chile, all firefighters are voluntaries. They have voluntaried for it, and they dong get anything out of it. Sometimes they even have to buy their outfits. There are doctors doing it, lawyers, businessmen, and they do it because they want to, and they get a lot of respect for that.

But politicians are a whole other deal. Politicians are powerfull. THeoreticaly, politicians are our representatives, and they have the assets and ressources of the whole nation. So, they are getting taxes from 100, 200 million people, and figuring how to use it. It doesnt even need to be like that. It can be simple things, like changing laws and making new ones. If you create, change or produce a new law, you may be dealing with a lot of people, and these people can lose or win a lot of money. To make sure these politicians dont get corrupted into accepting or changing laws just to help certain groups, they get well payed.

At least that is how things should work on reality. They dont. THere is a lot of lobbying, corruption and a whole lot of darker deals. But, well, we have to do something, and unless we come to a time when politicians have very strong morals, we will have to do anything to keep corruption low.

I put researchers and inventors. Next would be clinical medicine, then "ick" jobs.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not these parts.

Remove the actors, and the film industry goes to pot, obviously. However, there are other forms of entertainment - people will get over it. Similarly in sport - remove the football players, and the football 'industry' goes to pot. But again, there are other sports, other forms of entertainment.

Now try removing the doctors - people will die.
Now try removing the sanitation workers - rubbish piles up, sewage goes untreated, disease becomes rife - people die.

No one's going to die if no more films are made, or no more football is played.


That is true. But the market has a very basic and important rule, and that is the one of search and avaiability. First, it was only meant for products, but nowadays it also works for services.

This law states that if there are a lot of options, the price will be low, because the competition makes the involved fight for every new buyer. If there is no competition, the owner can choose any price he wants, because people will have to buy from him.

With services, its the same. Ok, doctors are very important. But there are tons of them. If one doctor dies, ok, there are millions more. Here in my city, there is a doctor for every 300 citizens, while the ONU recomends 1 doctor for every 600 citizens. There are doctors everywhere. Shoot a bunch and no one will care LOL. Its like guitarists, there are tons of them everywhere, but drumers...

Its the same way with global icons, like lets say Tom Hanks (actor) and Ronaldinho Gaucho or Zidane (soccer players). They are priceless. They deal with so much money that they really deserve part of it. Tom Hanks is a sure way to make a movie good, and that means you can go to the movie theater to see one of his morries without worring if its good or not. Ronaldinho is an icon for the Nike brand, and his image really helps sales.

Now, if Tom Hanks helps a movie, shouldnt he get part of it? Instead of asking for payment, Keanu Reaves asked for a share of the final profits on Matrix, like lets say 1% or 3%. The movie made millions, Keanu made millions. Now, could someone else have acted in his place? Probabily. But he was the one that made it, and by doing it, he made sure he had to be chosen for the sequels.

If someone buys a shoe because they want to play soccer like Ronaldinho, shouldnt he get some money out of it? I think he does.

Its all about money. If you help people make money, they will give you part of it. If you dont help people make money, they wont give you money. Now, if people go see a game because you´re going to play, you deserve part of the tickets, part of the money sponsors give to the team, part of the money shops getting from products, and everything else. Why? Because if you dont play, people wont go to the game, wont watch it on tv etc.

Now, the world needs actors? No. But people have money to spend on movies, and that is why they get money. Actors make sure movies are produced, which makes sure camera handlers get their jobs, people get jobs selling tickets, working with the projectors, cleaning the movie theaters etc. For every actor he gives jobs to, lets say, 1000 people more.

i personally value the work of healthcare people (doctors, etc) and childcare peeps (teachers, etc) very highly. therefore, if it were up to me, they'd be paid the most.

i personally value the work of healthcare people (doctors, etc) and childcare peeps (teachers, etc) very highly. therefore, if it were up to me, they'd be paid the most.

They are high for me as well as researchers, thoes are my top of the scales

Hahaha, yes. I thought it was just me, but I've definitely noticed my "morals", such as they were, going away over the last few years.
Which is why I'd suggest corruption is punished very harshly. Death for the corruptors and the corruptee, and make sure you catch them. Mortal fear is an even more powerful motivating influence than greed :)

That is normal. Its not just about money. I´m 23, and when I was 20, I saw a 16 year old woman and though "Oh no, she is 4 years younger than I am". Nowadays if she is willing, just shake it babe

Yes, corruption should be punished. Im not saying a good pay check is the only way to deal with corruption. Its one of them. If someone is getting my taxes and spending on whores, I want his balls off. For me, corruption should be punished by death. No one touches my money.

on the other hand they need almost no training and it's almost no responsibility (in comparison with for instance a brainsurgeon for instance)

Which would cause a greater decline in the national health if they downed tools and stoped their labours? I'd wager it wouldn't be the brain surgeons.

In case anybody is interested, the inspiration from this post was actually when I read an article about parenting. There was this guy in it who said that "motherhood is a woman's highest calling." A lot of people in my country seem to believe this. Yet most people don't feel that motherhood warrants a paycheck. So this got me wondering about how people really relate their ideas of "valuable work" with their standards for pay.

In my country (USA), a common belief is that the value of work should be reflected in the amount of pay somebody receives for doing that work. However, I think most of us will agree that this often doesn't happen in practice.

So if you could put your personal values into practice, which job(s) do you think should pay the most?

I'm including a poll with some of the options I can think of off the top of my head, but there are really so many possible answers that I'm guessing "other" is going to win the poll.

I voted for politicians.
Two reasons :

High pay will make sure that highly skilled people will be interested in the positions
There will be less incentive to take bribes or to get influenced by people promising more money

The ones that people want someone to to badly enough to pay them lots of money and where the supply of people offering to do the work (and capeable of doing it) is much less than the demand of people wanting the work done.

I cant decide really.

I'd say we'll end up chasing away a lot of people who want the job, if we do things this way.

Real people have concrete, pragmatic concerns in their lives. They've got families to help support. They've got bills to pay. If you make politics a shitty-paying field with no benefits, then you basically are chasing away anybody who has to work for a living and support their family. You make politics a job that only the very rich can afford to pursue.

What rubbish!

Have you evert don voluntary work? Do you somebody who has? Why do you think people volunteer to do unpaid work?

I voted for politicians.
Two reasons :

High pay will make sure that highly skilled people will be interested in the positions
There will be less incentive to take bribes or to get influenced by people promising more money

That first reason is the one that most interests me right now.

I keep seeing this attitude that people should choose to do certain jobs even if the pay sucks and there are no benefits. I have to ask...WHY?! Why should we PUNISH people who choose to do really important jobs? If we have a person who is willing to put their life into serving their community and being a great leader, why should we be paying them shit wages and denying them benefits?

And how on Earth can we expect talented, skilled people to want to choose shitty jobs like that?

We're having this problem in my field right now. Grant money is drying up, and a great many very talented researchers are leaving academia for the private sector. I used to be sure that I would end up teaching and doing research at a university, but right now I'm seriously questioning that because I can literally make three times as much if I go work for a drug company instead. That's just too freaking huge to ignore.

Which would cause a greater decline in the national health if they downed tools and stoped their labours? I'd wager it wouldn't be the brain surgeons.

sure, i didn't say they are unnecesary, but if a brain surgeon cuts a little bit to the left someone might die, the icky jobs don't have that kind of responsability. and also remember brain surgeons were only an example. if you would stop all docters it would have a far greater impact on national health then if you would only stop the brain surgeons.

in a perfect world everybody would just do it's job and contribute to society, and everybody would profit from eachothers work. but it doesn't take a genius to see that's nearly impossible.

What rubbish!

Have you evert don voluntary work? Do you somebody who has? Why do you think people volunteer to do unpaid work?
We're talking about a person's JOB, not about what they choose to do with their free time.

Yes, I volunteer. But my volunteer hours are closely related to my paycheck. When I was working two jobs to pay the bills, I didn't volunteer at all because I was working 16 hours a day already. When I got a solid job that paid all my bills and required only 30 hours of work per week, I went back to volunteering with a vengeance.

And I'm SINGLE. What about people who work full-time, then come home to 2 kids? You really expect them to be volunteer politicians on the side, in addition to that?

Why would you want to punish people who aren't already rich, yet who want to be in politics? Because that's all you'd be doing. People who have some other source of money and health care would be fine taking shitty-paying political jobs, but people who are working class or poor would basically have to resign themselves to never being able to afford a political career. We already have too much of a problem with that, in my opinion, and I wouldn't want to make it even worse. I don't like the idea of an aristocracy running my country (even though that's pretty much what we've got right now).

In theory, yes. But (un)fortunaly, after you become 20 or so, your morality really starts to sink. I´m not saying you become a monster, but your morals really become a lot looser.

And when that happens, you really stop caring. If you can get money in a easy way, you will probabily accept it. You may moan, feel guilty, feel ashamed, but if its a huge sum of money, and you dont need to do a lot for it, you will do it.

So yes, you can go find another job. YOu can work harder for it. But between working harder hours and with more responsability and getting more money for doing almost nothing, I would say 9 out of 10 people (and this is a shameless estimate) will go for the easier work, less time and more pay option.

In your subjective opinion. That certianly did not happen to me.

I grant you that as you get older you loose some of your idealistic niavity, byt losser morals, not in my experiance.

But politicians are a whole other deal. Politicians are powerfull. THeoreticaly, politicians are our representatives, and they have the assets and ressources of the whole nation. So, they are getting taxes from 100, 200 million people, and figuring how to use it. It doesnt even need to be like that. It can be simple things, like changing laws and making new ones. If you create, change or produce a new law, you may be dealing with a lot of people, and these people can lose or win a lot of money. To make sure these politicians dont get corrupted into accepting or changing laws just to help certain groups, they get well payed.

Heh and we can see how well that has worked, conflict of intrest issues, scaming money whilst in office, using position to gain board level entry to corparations, using position to put goverment funds into the hands of bussiness they sit on the board of, these are all common place examples of curroption in goverment going on right now.

In your subjective opinion. That certianly did not happen to me.

I grant you that as you get older you loose some of your idealistic niavity, byt losser morals, not in my experiance.

Maybe.

Its a generation thing. I´m 23, and I´m from the Tv Generation.

And anyway, I´m not saying a person turns into a monster. Its mostly the small things.

That first reason is the one that most interests me right now.

I keep seeing this attitude that people should choose to do certain jobs even if the pay sucks and there are no benefits. I have to ask...WHY?! Why should we PUNISH people who choose to do really important jobs? If we have a person who is willing to put their life into serving their community and being a great leader, why should we be paying them shit wages and denying them benefits?

And how on Earth can we expect talented, skilled people to want to choose shitty jobs like that?

We're having this problem in my field right now. Grant money is drying up, and a great many very talented researchers are leaving academia for the private sector. I used to be sure that I would end up teaching and doing research at a university, but right now I'm seriously questioning that because I can literally make three times as much if I go work for a drug company instead. That's just too freaking huge to ignore.

My thoughts exactly.
Yes, I know, everybody always complains about how much money politicians are making, but compare what they're making to what similar positions in middle management will pull and you'll find that politicians are chronically underpaid.
As a result, people with skills who can get jobs in any form of administrative or managment position will go for private companies, and those who can't tend to end up as politicians.
Make it lucrative to be a politician, and those idiots that we have now will no longer stand a chance.

Better yet, make the politician's salary the exact average for the region he represents; that'll motivate him to raise it. :)

That's somewhere between insane and brilliant, thus: Genius!

Heh and we can see how well that has worked, conflict of intrest issues, scaming money whilst in office, using position to gain board level entry to corparations, using position to put goverment funds into the hands of bussiness they sit on the board of, these are all common place examples of curroption in goverment going on right now.

Ok, over the years, I´ve learned that biching about something should only be done if you know how to fix or change it.

Now, how can we make sure people dont become corrupt? You can do it like in Norway, where oil pays for everything and you dont need to work, meaning everyone usually gets the same paycheck. That makes sure everyone has about the same social level, meaning you dont get pissed off if someone has a FERRARI (capital letters) and you dont.

Or we could do it like in medieval Japan where the emperor holded all the familie of the regional governants as prisoners, to keep everyone in line.

So my wise friend, what can we do in our free trade capitalist society where people earn millions while others earn dimes? Please enlighten us.

Dude, they are the only ones that can. I sure wouldnt be able to do a movie and make millions of people watch it.

And do you think fame is easy? You cant get out of your house without 5 bodyguards and 100 cameras watching your footsteps. You have to sacrifice a lot of things you cant do. Easy? Look at Britney Spears.

Not a dude. (I love these gender vague nicknames)

I certainly can, all they are going to do is to take a picture. They could be assaulted by maniacs, too, but guess what?, common folks also get assaulted by maniacs out in the street all the time too, they just don't have the money to pay for bodyguards, and we the media hardly care about it. And the cameras...Well, you DO stand in front of cameras for a living, you have to love that, Why are you upset when people is helping you to actually do your job? you are a celebrity!

If it's that bad, they can always spend their fortunes on some plastic surgery to make them unrecognisable and go work twelve-hour shifts in a factory.

Quoted for truth. Instead of most people, they can always quit it easily.

Regarding politics...
I keep seeing this attitude that people should choose to do certain jobs even if the pay sucks and there are no benefits. I have to ask...WHY?! Why should we PUNISH people who choose to do really important jobs? If we have a person who is willing to put their life into serving their community and being a great leader, why should we be paying them shit wages and denying them benefits?

To discourage the greedy bastards who'll just get the job so they can spend their time napping in a big green chair, drinking the free beer at the House of Commons bar, enjoying all the expenses they can eat. Because those people will not be "willing to put their life into serving their community and being a great leader".
And I said minimum wage, which isn't nearly so bad here as in the US, and we have the NHS of course. It'd certainly encourage the politicians to make sure the people in shitty jobs with no benefits didn't have it so bad, wouldn't it?

And how on Earth can we expect talented, skilled people to want to choose shitty jobs like that?

We don't get talented or skilled politicians at the moment, and we pay them the earth. So if we can get untalented, useless people for cheap, why not?

It should be noted that I don't support elected democracy anyway. The politicians should be randomly selected, like juries are; that would be representative, not a bunch of wankers with shiny teeth who've spent years in elocution classes. And yes, in that case, you'd have to pay them a reasonable wage, for perfectly normal practical reasons.

We're talking about a person's JOB, not about what they choose to do with their free time.

Yes, I volunteer. But my volunteer hours are closely related to my paycheck. When I was working two jobs to pay the bills, I didn't volunteer at all because I was working 16 hours a day already. When I got a solid job that paid all my bills and required only 30 hours of work per week, I went back to volunteering with a vengeance.

And I'm SINGLE. What about people who work full-time, then come home to 2 kids? You really expect them to be volunteer politicians on the side, in addition to that?

Why would you want to punish people who aren't already rich, yet who want to be in politics? Because that's all you'd be doing. People who have some other source of money and health care would be fine taking shitty-paying political jobs, but people who are working class or poor would basically have to resign themselves to never being able to afford a political career. We already have too much of a problem with that, in my opinion, and I wouldn't want to make it even worse. I don't like the idea of an aristocracy running my country (even though that's pretty much what we've got right now).

Ahhhh it's you Bottle.

Heheh I should have known huh ;¬)

The reason I ask, then should be plaain to you. You volunter because you see a job that needs doing, or people that need helping, and you do it for alutristic reasons.

Why then should the job of governance not be the same. If we cut the wage, make the job part time, and perhaps on a jobshare basis, cut out all benifits, then we will have only the people who want to do the job for aluturistic reasons doing it. If these are the poor or the rich, it don't matter.

To discourage the greedy bastards who'll just get the job so they can spend their time napping in a big green chair, drinking the free beer at the House of Commons bar, enjoying all the expenses they can eat. Because those people will not be "willing to put their life into serving their community and being a great leader".

But it will also discourage working-class and non-wealthy individuals who have to balance their feelings of civic duty with their personal responsibilities.


And I said minimum wage, which isn't nearly so bad here as in the US, and we have the NHS of course. It'd certainly encourage the politicians to make sure the people in shitty jobs with no benefits didn't have it so bad, wouldn't it?

Now THAT is a decent argument. :D I like LG's idea on this topic.


We don't get talented or skilled politicians at the moment, and we pay them the earth. So if we can get untalented, useless people for cheap, why not?

I certainly understand that feeling, and I don't entirely disagree, it's just that I don't think making politics a shitty-paying field with no benefits is really going to help fix this.

But I don't know what would. I'm not terribly useful here.

Ahhhh it's you Bottle.

Heheh I should have known huh ;¬)

The reason I ask, then should be plaain to you. You volunter because you see a job that needs doing, or people that need helping, and you do it for alutristic reasons.

Altruism is great, and all, but it's not really a valid choice when your kids need shoes.


Why then should the job of governance not be the same. If we cut the wage, make the job part time, and perhaps on a jobshare basis, cut out all benifits, then we will have only the people who want to do the job for aluturistic reasons doing it. If these are the poor or the rich, it don't matter.
In a perfect world, maybe that would be nice. But I don't think it is remotely realistic in the world we actually have.

R&D, because their work directly benefits the human condition. Or something.

Ok, over the years, I´ve learned that biching about something should only be done if you know how to fix or change it.

Now, how can we make sure people dont become corrupt? You can do it like in Norway, where oil pays for everything and you dont need to work, meaning everyone usually gets the same paycheck. That makes sure everyone has about the same social level, meaning you dont get pissed off if someone has a FERRARI (capital letters) and you dont.

Or we could do it like in medieval Japan where the emperor holded all the familie of the regional governants as prisoners, to keep everyone in line.

So my wise friend, what can we do in our free trade capitalist society where people earn millions while others earn dimes? Please enlighten us.

In all honesty i don't know if we shall ever be able to get rid of corruption, nor how to do it.

But then I certianly don't agree with what 'you have learned over the years'. We can in effect bitch about anything we choose to, wether such bitching has any effect other than 'getting it off the chest' well thats a differrant matter umm.

Altruism is great, and all, but it's not really a valid choice when your kids need shoes.

Well I certianly see some merit in that, but again, that is not valid for all of us. I know people how do volunteer work, and hold down part time jobs, what stops those without children doing it, those who don't want children(and there are plenty of those around). The argument that paying politicians high wages to stop curruption just does not work, we all of us here I am sure can cite example upon example of political corruption, so that idea just has not worked.

Indeed it is the power that corrupts, not the lack of money. As I said, part time(so they can earn a wage else where - ontop of their) minimum wage. Job share and no benifits to cut down on corruption. This makes sure that only those people who want to benifit sociaty are interested in the job.

I really can't see the 'punishment' you talk of here.


In a perfect world, maybe that would be nice. But I don't think it is remotely realistic in the world we actually have.

Heh the world will never be perfect, in fact we are talking about ways in which to make it better. Again I can't see what the problem with this idea is?

Which jobs should pay the most

Any retail job reason:having to put up with asshole bosses who expect the impossible and idiot customers that ask stuuuuupid questions.

police reason: having to deal with the scum of the earth all day and maintain their composure.

basically any job where one is expected to deal with insane inhuman bull without snapping like a twig and grabbing an assualt rifle.

Those who should be paid less.
Politicians
Corporate CEO's
Professional Sports Stars
Celebrities

Retail. Definately retail.

Which jobs should pay the most

Any retail job reason:having to put up with asshole bosses who expect the impossible and idiot customers that ask stuuuuupid questions.

police reason: having to deal with the scum of the earth all day and maintain their composure.

basically any job where one is expected to deal with insane inhuman bull without snapping like a twig and grabbing an assualt rifle.

Those who should be paid less.
Politicians
Corporate CEO's
Professional Sports Stars
Celebrities



Yeah that includes us poor old IT support bods then!:D

sure, i didn't say they are unnecesary, but if a brain surgeon cuts a little bit to the left someone might die, the icky jobs don't have that kind of responsability. and also remember brain surgeons were only an example. if you would stop all docters it would have a far greater impact on national health then if you would only stop the brain surgeons.

I still reckon we'd have greater life expectancy (and for that matter quality of life) in a world without doctors/healthcare workers than a world without sanitation workers.

As for brain surgeons cutting a bit to the left... heck, if someone drives a bin lorry a bit to the left someone might die too.

police reason: having to deal with the scum of the earth all day and maintain their composure.

Eh? I'm pretty certain that most police spent most days dealing with other policemen and average members of the public. I think actual contact with criminals would be the exception rather than the rule. Or were you saying that other police officers are the scum of the earth?

Or were you saying that other police officers are the scum of the earth?

Hahaha, well done :D

Better yet, make the politician's salary the exact average for the region he represents; that'll motivate him to raise it. :)

Good in theory, but what if he raises it by driving out everyone with a low salary?

pay shouldn't be baised off of job catagory, but worker skills.

The ones with the biggest responsability. And fortunaly, it is what happens in real life.

The CEO of a big company makes decisions that may affect the life of thousands of workers, millions or billions worth in goods, and the investment of dozens of investors that are paying him to make them profit.

A renowed actor stands as the popular icon which will make millions of people go see the movie that took 6 months to be prepared and 100 million dollars in investment.

An american football player has to do the play that will earn him the victory, a good game and make thousands of people watch it, buy goods from the team, eat things at the stadium, earn sponsors for the team and for himself, and make sure people watch the game on TV so that broadcast companies can get good money out of specially placed TV comercials and advertises.

So, capitalism works as its suposed to be, and works wonderfully. Its all about money, and it cant work in other ways unless you stop capitalism.

Street cleaners deserve a lot? No, they dont. Anyone can do their jobs, and their jobs are pretty damn easy. You work for 8 hours and go home without any worry in your mind. A CEO works 24/7. An actor has to keep his public image alive and undamaged all the times, and worry about paparazzi. An athlete has to worry about his physical condition 24/7, eat only what is needed, endure constant pain, long training, exaustion and failure, because there can be only one first place.
Yes, because being famous, or having power, is sooooo hard. Forgive me if I'm not exactly falling over myself with agreement here. (Aelosia pre-empted my point, anyway.)

Crap, I totally should have put that one on there! We DO need it, dammit! :D
I fully agree. I'm sick and tired of having to borrow money from my parents (isn't it supposed to be the other way around, anyway?).

Better yet, make the politician's salary the exact average for the region he represents; that'll motivate him to raise it. :)
I endorse this idea.


Anyway, the highest-paid professions should be those for which, a) a good deal of education is required, b) there is responsibility, and c) there is difficulty. Hence an example of a pay pyramid, from highest to lowest pay, could run:

Doctors, researchers;
Lawyers, judges, politicians;
Teachers;
CEOs, executives, etc;
Entertainers and the like;
Vital services;
Nonvital services.
[et cetera]

I still reckon we'd have greater life expectancy (and for that matter quality of life) in a world without doctors/healthcare workers than a world without sanitation workers.

i don't know about life expectancy because it could be greatly influenced by dead baby's.

but i still don't see why a sanitation worker needs to be paid more than a doctor. they didn't spend +-10 years studying for it and there isn't as much demand for sanitation workers than there is for doctors.
also isn't it obvious that people aren't paid for their usefulness to society? if w did that we'd better start paying housemothers and fathers a lot.

i don't know about life expectancy because it could be greatly influenced by dead baby's.

but i still don't see why a sanitation worker needs to be paid more than a doctor. they didn't spend +-10 years studying for it and there isn't as much demand for sanitation workers than there is for doctors.
also isn't it obvious that people aren't paid for their usefulness to society? if w did that we'd better start paying housemothers and fathers a lot.

You know you are right, we should start paying parents who stay at home with the kids.

Unfortunately, its the way things have to work. If someone at the bottom of a major corporation is being paid £5.25 and hour and does a 40 hour week and the CEO is being paid the same, then what is the incentive to work hard, get qualifications and try to go somewhere in life. If everyone was paid the same we'd end up communists. Someone has to have the money..

You know you are right, we should start paying parents who stay at home with the kids.

maybe we should, although i don't know if it's possible (money-wise)

Teachers. Good teachers.

Yes, because being famous, or having power, is sooooo hard. Forgive me if I'm not exactly falling over myself with agreement here. (Aelosia pre-empted my point, anyway.)


I fully agree. I'm sick and tired of having to borrow money from my parents (isn't it supposed to be the other way around, anyway?).


I endorse this idea.


Anyway, the highest-paid professions should be those for which, a) a good deal of education is required, b) there is responsibility, and c) there is difficulty. Hence an example of a pay pyramid, from highest to lowest pay, could run:

Doctors, researchers;
Lawyers, judges, politicians;
Teachers;
CEOs, executives, etc;
Entertainers and the like;
Vital services;
Nonvital services.
[et cetera]

Vital services should definitely be paid more than entertainers. Far more.


Unfortunately, its the way things have to work. If someone at the bottom of a major corporation is being paid £5.25 and hour and does a 40 hour week and the CEO is being paid the same, then what is the incentive to work hard, get qualifications and try to go somewhere in life. If everyone was paid the same we'd end up communists. Someone has to have the money..
A peon may become a manager, but not a CEO. And the pay difference between manager and CEO is still astronomical.

Pff, if you guys keep being as naive as you are now, you will never get the big bucks. :D

If being famous is so easy, why dont you guys become actors and earn money that way. I want to see a movie with yourself on it.

But I doubt it. You can barely do a youtube video, and not many people would watch it.

medical jobs
teachers
ems/police/fire
sanitation/water treatment

without question, those are the four most important categories, and pretty much in that order.

Hey! Where're the lawyers? :D

I'll caucus with the Communists and vote for equal pay.

Jobs that should pay more: Childcare, "Ick" Jobs/Public Service, Emergency Response/Military (All of above deserve benefits too)

Jobs that should pay less: Entertainment

Jobs that can stay where they are: Political Positions, R&D, Clinical Medicine.

Mine.

Bugger it, I was going to say that!

The most important, capability-dependent jobs should pay the most to make them the most competitive.

Leadership positions should be paid the most, in business, &c.

Educators are currently quite under-paid in my opinion.

Lawyers and doctors should also be well compensated, along with influential and important professions.

Bugger it, I was going to say that!

:D

I would put down managers given their role in coordinating labor, capital, and ideas into something tangible that we can all use, not only that but given the high levels of risk sometimes found in this position as well there must be a return. This is not to say that other jobs are unimportant, however, given the importance of such a central task to human welfare as this, it seems imperative that we have the talented and capable working to create optimal conditions for the best production of goods and services for society.

The ones with the biggest responsability. And fortunaly, it is what happens in real life.
Street cleaners deserve a lot? No, they dont. Anyone can do their jobs, and their jobs are pretty damn easy. You work for 8 hours and go home without any worry in your mind. A CEO works 24/7. An actor has to keep his public image alive and undamaged all the times, and worry about paparazzi. An athlete has to worry about his physical condition 24/7, eat only what is needed, endure constant pain, long training, exaustion and failure, because there can be only one first place.

This is an signorant statement. A lot of CEOs and such live in luxury, and many wealthy do NOT work as hard as everyone "else". Their jobs have countless more perks that do not necessarily equal what they do. Just take a look at the huge debate on CEO Compensation, and possible regulation by the government concerning fair compensation (Meaning that some CEOs were being overpaid)

This is an signorant statement. A lot of CEOs and such live in luxury, and many wealthy do NOT work as hard as everyone "else". Their jobs have countless more perks that do not necessarily equal what they do. Just take a look at the huge debate on CEO Compensation, and possible regulation by the government concerning fair compensation (Meaning that some CEOs were being overpaid)
No, it really is not an ignorant statement. Leisure distributions have changed and they have not changed in favor of the wealthy. (http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/fr/flyout) Now we can debate back and forth on whether or not current CEO pay is too great, where various points are attacked such as on firm size and CEO pay gains, the nature of the market for top executives, etc. However, we can claim that CEOs do deserve high pay for an important job without blenching. Let us just look at CEO pay this way though: even if these CEOs are paid so much, the pay that they get is a drop in the bucket for the companies in question and if all of that money paid to CEOs in the top 5 executives in the Fortune 500 were given to the workers it would amount to about $100 a person.