Jobs aren't paid based on what the job is worth

[jackfaire]

Jobs in this country are paid based on how many people are waiting to do the job not on how necessary the job is to the country. The mid-level management job that is one re-org away from being eliminated will pay better than the restaurant worker that keeps the place running. Not because the former is more necessary but rather because There are 10 guys waiting for the mid-level management job but a 100 waiting for the restaurant workers job.

So the pay has nothing to do with the value of the job and everything to do with the supply of potential employees able to perform it.

[virus]

Jobs in this country are paid based on how many people are waiting to do the job not on how necessary the job is to the country. The mid-level management job that is one re-org away from being eliminated will pay better than the restaurant worker that keeps the place running. Not because the former is more necessary but rather because There are 10 guys waiting for the mid-level management job but a 100 waiting for the restaurant workers job.

So the pay has nothing to do with the value of the job and everything to do with the supply of potential employees able to perform it.

See that's assuming that restaurants are necessary to the country? Surely people could cook, it would be far less damaging to the environment (look up resaurant food waste for example).

But I take your point - my partner earns less than 1/2 what I earn before taking into account my additional allowances (bonuses, rewards payments etc) and I earn less than most in my team as I've got the lowest length of service. My job is basically technical support for a company selling stuff whereas hers is testing blood products for the NHS - who is doing more for society?

Welcome to life - a footballer runs around dribbling (in the truest sense of the word) and yet gets paid a fortune where as nurses and police get paid much much less. It's wrong but then people aren't paid on merit.

[mjr]

See that's assuming that restaurants are necessary to the country? Surely people could cook, it would be far less damaging to the environment (look up resaurant food waste for example).

But I take your point - my partner earns less than 1/2 what I earn before taking into account my additional allowances (bonuses, rewards payments etc) and I earn less than most in my team as I've got the lowest length of service. My job is basically technical support for a company selling stuff whereas hers is testing blood products for the NHS - who is doing more for society?

Welcome to life - a footballer runs around dribbling (in the truest sense of the word) and yet gets paid a fortune where as nurses and police get paid much much less. It's wrong but then people aren't paid on merit.

There are economic (i.e. supply/demand) explanations for that.

As to your partner, if she works for NHS, well, NHS only has so much money, right? And how many people work for NHS? Now, they could get that pay up, but it would probably involved more NHS funding, which would probably mean higher taxes. And NHS has to pay for a bunch of other stuff, right?

As to the "footballer" (or as we call them here in the States, "soccer players"), there's economic reasons for that, too. Firstly, that guy's career is probably going to be much shorter than someone who works for NHS. Simply because of the type of job it is. And not everyone has that type of talent, either. Which, that talent caused him to develop skills over years. I assume most "footballers" don't play past their mid 30's or very early 40's. How long can someone work for NHS?

I assume those games are also broadcast on television, and have a large market (i.e. a high demand). There are also likely licensing deals and such. That particular player has a "market value". What it is, we don't really know, but I assume they have contracts to play for these teams (similar to the NFL or MLB in the States). Those contracts are generally negotiated. So, if a player CAN get X millions of dollars (or pounds, I assume), per season, that's probably negotiated.

That's not likely to change. I think the only way that would change is if a law were passed that said each job has a range of salary (i.e. a "footballer" can only make between X and Y pounds, a CEO can only make between A and B pounds, etc).

People are willing to give large sums of money to these "football" organizations.

Compare how much the NHS makes (or, for that matter, a restaurant) in raw dollars and in profit, then calculate the number of people it must be spread among at the different levels.

Jobs in this country are paid based on how many people are waiting to do the job not on how necessary the job is to the country.

Why does the job have to be necessary to the country? Are FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., "necessary" to the country? People that work there (especially programmers and managers) likely get paid very, very well.

I get that sometimes the answer to "Why do you charge that?" is "Because I can".

Let's say you did woodworking. And let's say that you made a piece of furniture. You would put a price on it, according to what you felt your labor cost was, your materials, and you might put in a little for profit, too.

I also am reminded of the anecdote of the man who calls a carpenter to fix a squeak in his floor. The carpenter comes to the man's house, walks around the floor, locates the squeak, and hammers in a nail. The squeak stops.

The carpenter bills the man $200. The man asks him why it's so much, to which the carpenter replies, "Well, it was $1 for the nail, and $199 for knowing where to hammer it."

Sometimes we pay for knowledge. Sometimes it's convenience.

Case in point: A couple of weeks ago my AC stopped cooling. It was "after hours" (after 5PM). I called a guy who came out and fixed my problem in about 10 minutes. The fee: $120.

But that was also for his time, knowledge, "inconvenience" and experience. He had to drive to my house, diagnose the problem, fix it, and then drive back home (I assume). All told, he was probably out of his house (if that's where he came from) for probably 45 minutes or an hour. So that means that, based on this 1 interaction, his rate is $120 per hour.

Multiply that by approximately 2,080 (or more), and you get roughly $250K per year. That's before he pays taxes and overhead.

[telecom_goddess]

Any football player that has a "shortened career" due to the physical strains of that job, can always do endorsements during and after, so they don't lose revenue stream at all. They don't deserve the millions they are paid, it's bullshit.

The pay structure in this country is ridiculous.

As for restaurant waste, that's something that can be eliminated by not throwing away every little thing. Give the food away to someone who's hungry instead of wasting it. And before anyone says there is a liability, make those people sign legal waivers, problem solved.

[mjr]

They don't deserve the millions they are paid, it's bullshit.

Why is that? If that's what the "market" demands, and that's what they're able to negotiate...

Because none of them are really going to turn down large sums of money to play a sport.

Aside from that, there's an old adage that "NFL" stands for "Not For Long". Most of those guys have a career of 1 contract. Yes, some of them make lots of money, but that one contract is all they'll play. Aside from that, that's what the NFL and the NFLPA (through the market) have determined is their M.O. for figuring salary. Heck, the minimum salary for an NFL player in 2019 is $495,000.

Who determines what job is worth how much money, and who is deserving to make that money?

And yes, some get endorsement deals. There are many who don't.

[telecom_goddess]

It's insane to pay anyone half a million or more to throw a ball around and run on a field. I work much harder at my job and I won't see that kind of money in my life time. The fact that the market bears it needs to change. Support more important things in life.

the same goes for actors that make millions per film. Yes they go through a lot but it's NOT WORTH THAT MUCH! For fuck's sake.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The only problem with that conception "free market" is it actually isn't that cut and dry.

Take your athlete for example. A professional athlete has had at least 4 levels of professional instruction generally including a starting school, a high school, a college, and a professional coach and that's assuming they go straight to the pros. Any one of those can be a career ender such as, bad coach, non-visible school, etc. So there are structural barriers of entry. This artificially constrains the pool of talent not to pure talent, but rather those visible avenues from which players could be selected. In that sense, it is elitism but simply a different type and with different dynamics we normally associate with elitism.

Or consider a Doctor or a Lawyer. Schools for those professions have not increased in proportion to population growth. Again, because most laws that allowed self-study have been abolished (you used to be able to become a lawyer through apprenticeship and self study), it funnels all participants through the collegiate system. That system tends to reinforce existing classes as the preperatory and introductory prereqs such as the right clubs and the right study are already in the hands of the upper, middle-upper class. So strictly speaking what they charge has very little to do with those willing or able to do the job, and rather more to do with the systematic construction of the market.

So it has very little to do with real markets and very much to do with artificial markets. Those professions that actually reflect real markets are low wage. Even Accounting which at one time had some level of systemic advantage has been overstuffed by academia which has eroded those wages.

To your Facebook example, as someone in and around the field I can tell you that a great number of these people simply did programming or systems work because they enjoyed it long before they got a job. Two people can do the same job in this field and their pay will diverge coniderably since in Tech, you are the talent. In IT, you are some other companies cost. So in this case, they were ahead of the class system that inevitably followed them realizing that tech work at tech companies was extremely well paying eventhough if you can't make into that field (like a finance person not making it to wall street), what remains is far more reasonably paid. At this point, a lot of hiring is done straight from colleges so you're back to traditional classicism you see in other high end jobs. But the original people were doing the same work for fun long before the market said they were worth anything. And to some degree, once everyone piles into the field their market rate will go down considerably.

I guess long story short, worth is often dumb luck and absolutely has a huge component of talent and preparation. But all the talent and preparation in the world won't make teaching, janitorial work, arts, crafts, music, or factory work worth more. The only things that can possibly do that are artificial markets - "elite" art. Recording contract music. Union construction. Tech Bubbles. Plumber Shortages. The Bar. The USMLE. One of the most historically large increases in Real Wage? The Black Plague.

[mjr]

It's insane to pay anyone half a million or more to throw a ball around and run on a field. I work much harder at my job and I won't see that kind of money in my life time. The fact that the market bears it needs to change. Support more important things in life.

the same goes for actors that make millions per film. Yes they go through a lot but it's NOT WORTH THAT MUCH! For fuck's sake.

So, how much is it worth "to run around on a field and throw a ball"? Any idea? Not saying your job isn't hard, at all. Just wondering. I'm a software guy by trade, so I could theoretically argue that MY job is hard, but I don't think my job is as hard as a fast food worker or many other "blue collar" jobs. I worked in fast food myself when I was younger, so I understand first hand how hard that work is.

Are you a fan of sports of any kind?

Sports, like other occupations, has certain intricacies that the athletes must understand.

Also, it's not like they just show up on game day. There's practice, film study, conditioning, workouts, off-season workouts, travel, etc. What's the risk of a life-changing or career-ending injury at your job?

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's more than just "playing a game".

As the old expression goes: If it were easy, everyone could do it.

And I go back to my carpenter example. How much should Mr. Carpenter get paid for fixing the guy's squeaky floor?

I recently took a job that put me into the six figure range for the first time in my life. It's a software engineering job. Skills I have been honing for 20 years. Do I deserve that pay? Do I deserve more? Less?

Sometimes you deserve what you negotiate.

D_Yeti isn't really wrong. There are "artificial" markets. But not everyone can be a pro athlete.

Just like not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer or a physicist.

That's why the "what the job is worth" argument bugs me. You get what a "market" (artificial or not) is willing to give, within the law. And few people can actually say what a particular job is "worth" from a monetary standpoint.

Yes, there are bigger things in life. And yes, we should focus on them. Not arguing that.

Some jobs just pay what they pay. As I said, these sports entities have their wage scales, and they've been set and negotiated over the years by players and unions alike.

So if a sports team wants to (and can afford to) pay some guy millions of dollars to "throw a ball and run around on a field", it's likely he negotiated that salary, and if someone weren't willing to pay him that much, he'd either have to find a different line of work, or take a lower salary.

[mjr]

Again, because most laws that allowed self-study have been abolished (you used to be able to become a lawyer through apprenticeship and self study)

I think in some places you still can. IIRC, Kim Kardashian is trying to become a lawyer in a similar manner.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yea - I just wish that was the case everywhere. For whatever reason I'm brilliant (relatively) when a task or goal is real work. I'm just terrible in "academic" environments. There's too much free time, too many people not taking things seriously, too many teachers/professors trying to turn things into trivia. And I think there's a lot of underemployed people out there where that's the case. And I was always interested in Medicine more because I loved the science and continuing nature of it and the ability to help people directly.

Having enough friends that became lawyers or doctors, I have no doubt I could have succeeded in either field just given how we converse. I'm not "out of place" in those conversations. But I wasn't built for the system that sorts people out of them. My brain just can't learn that this unimportant Art History class is critical for the GPA and reading this book for a random unannounced quiz is a thing. So I could take a business law course and do really well but then I'd take the basic science course and my brain just wouldn't engage. Which is interesting because I still like science and learn about it constantly - just in that format I don't know what to tell you. The anxiety that needs to kick in just doesn't.

So tech actually ended up being good for me because there were no gatekeepers and it was largely a field of "if you're interested in it, people will help you" and in the end I knew because it was knew it would have decent return but over time when the rest of the world woke up to how it could "disrupt" things, it got really lucrative. I make no mistake in thinking my "worth" derives from it though. They're going to ship my job to India the first chance they get because unlike Medicine or Law, even if I deal with millions of dollars in equipment daily, there is no legal framework protecting my wage. Thing is in Tech, you have to learn, relearn, and forget and learn new things all the time so you're already extremely used to the obsolescence dance.

It's sort of why I've had this jack-of-all-trades history. I've done a lot of different things but I'm so used to putting down this set of toys and picking up this one at this point I don't consider myself particularly specialized. I'm just in a position where I've sampled a bunch.

[telecom_goddess]

Ok well answer me this....when men play sports (and no I'm not a fan I don't understand the hub bub around this it's stupid) they get millions of dollars, but women who play don't get nearly that much, and they go through the exact same things the men do. It's unbalanced, and it needs to change. It's worth some money sure, but not MILLIONS!

[mjr]

Ok well answer me this....when men play sports (and no I'm not a fan I don't understand the hub bub around this it's stupid) they get millions of dollars, but women who play don't get nearly that much, and they go through the exact same things the men do. It's unbalanced, and it needs to change. It's worth some money sure, but not MILLIONS!

For the same reason college football coaches get paid millions of dollars, and the swimming coach doesn't.

Demand.

Football "brings money" into the school. It's "in demand" people watch it. There are lucrative television contracts and so forth. Booster clubs and alumni pour millions of dollars into the schools annually for the football team.

The swimming team? Not so much.

It's the same with pro sports. That's also why male athletes get paid far more than women athletes. It's not that the women athletes are bad at what they do, they just compete on a different level.

Personally, when the Women's World Cup rolls around, I'm more interested in watching that than the Men's World Cup. But guess what: The men's world cup makes more money, so the players get paid more.

Doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with college football coaches making millions, but that's what happens.

It's all about economics.

[telecom_goddess]

And that is why this country is so screwed up. The economics are extremely unbalanced, while some people are paid way more than they need to be, far more others are not being paid nearly enough. Capitalism sucks. The 1 percent at the top hold all the wealth and it never trickles down. We need to even out the wealth a hell of a lot. Maybe some of these people making millions can give a little back. So others aren't homeless and hungry or just struggling to survive to pay ever increasing rents and costs while wages for average people are STUCK. The football player makes a shit ton but normal people can't even live. There is something wrong with an economy that flows like that.

[mjr]

A lot of that really isn't the fault of capitalism.

[telecom_goddess]

A lot of that really isn't the fault of capitalism.

Actually it is. Capitalism encourages the few to be rich and the rest to be poor, it's not equal distribution, and we need equal distribution of wealth, food, medicine etc.