They are a minority of taxpayers. Those same people are the ones who usually petition against tax cuts. Less revenue means less pay. Capiche?lowing wrote:
Ummmm, you do realize that everyone in those professions are also taxpayers just as much as you are right??Kmarion wrote:
Taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Politicians try to appease them. Teachers, Firemen, and Policemen are paid by unwilling customers.
QFMFT!jord wrote:
I agree. I;ve always said soldiers should be paid twice as much,
Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-11 10:39:43)
We are in a shortage of most of these jobs, from what I understand we need every firefighter we have, at least in times of crysis, and I know there is a shortage of teachers as there is one of nurses. Teaching and nursing require a college degree or better, which is in some cases is more than a CEO. Sure some CEOs are irreplaceable, but so are some teachers. Some people are good at their jobs and that is just all there is to it, but that does not give anymore value to the job, it speaks of that person. There is a good chance that people who excel at one job will excel in another, because some traits of success hold true for all jobs, like communication skills, perseverance, work ethic, etc.pierro wrote:
In general, an individual's pay is (usually) comparable to the amount they contribute to society...if the CEO of Goldman Sach's makes two correct decisions, he's more then paid his paycheck (by efficiently allocating capital in society). The reason firefighters etc... are paid so little is that there are alot of them, and taking away one wouldn't be enormously detrimental. This is partly because the job demands alot of them and partly because it requires relatively few qualifications, I can replace a fireman easily but not Jack Welch. Additionally with "honorable" jobs, more people apply and with a greater supply of workers, that drives down the wages (ie with teachers). In the same way, there is a premium paid for "dishonorable" jobs because fewer apply...note the difference in pay between private security firms and soldiers.
So job insecurity translates to higher pay? No, it comes down to the higher level of "virtual" responsibility and the stress that comes with it. Everyone in these positions gets hyped up, telling themselves how important they are to the success of their operation, and that very well may be, but in reality the world would not stop even if they dropped off the face of the earth en masse.Kmarion wrote:
Isn't that what a progressive pay scale is all about? Not sweating your job 24 hours a day is also a great motivator. That is one of the reason I didn't take certain high paying jobs at UPS. The guys in upper management always worried about their jobs. The divorce rates for those positions are through the roof . It's a lot of stress. I was happy to stay a driver. I didn't have to babysit and I could do my "8 and the gate". I could have made more in management but I didn't want it. I've also seen upper management get axed (upclose) the second a stock starts to tank. They have a heavy burden. It's funny because I would hang out with drivers and their families and their homes were picture perfect. Some of my best friends are in management and they are always drinking, bitching about their jobs, yelling at their wives ..etc. They get paid more.. but they can keep it . When a company goes public they have got a lot to answer for. The average joe doesn't sit in on those conference calls where the management types are literally sweating their asses off because they didn't make the numbers. It's a very unforgiving position.
It's not all about money. I figure those guys are literally cutting years off of their life with the stress they endure. At least that's my own personal experience in corporate America.
I agree, and without these dedicated people we would be at a complete loss in these areas. The fact remains however that money is easily the most functionally necessary part of our society, so why can't we compensate them with money? These are basic jobs that keeps the everyday in check, but we want to skimp on it.lowing wrote:
I have a theory that might answer this OP:
the jobs that you list as jobs that pay off in respect rather than money, are the very jobs that people love to do for reasons OTHER than money.
Everyone earn pay what the market will bare ( or is it bear? ). Not one penny more or less.
My wife is a teacher ( college educated of course) and she makes around 50K a year, and this is teaching for 15 or so years. There is no question that she is a teacher for the love of teaching and not for the money.
People that are passionate about their professions will do it for less money, this must be true since they are.
Spearhead, I read the OP and I am lost. What is, "not according to lowing"?
Yes, they should pay for their own raise through taxes. Genius.lowing wrote:
Ummmm, you do realize that everyone in those professions are also taxpayers just as much as you are right??Kmarion wrote:
Taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Politicians try to appease them. Teachers, Firemen, and Policemen are paid by unwilling customers.
I didn't say job insecurity translates to higher pay. Higher stress and higher responsibility translates to higher pay. There is a Huge difference between someone who does their job and someone who has to worry about how someone else is doing their job. Like I said I passed a few times on a promotion for that very fact. There is a higher expectation and burden of responsibility for higher paying positions. I'm of course telling you from my first hand experience. I'm not pretending that this is the way it is everywhere. However being involved in an inside operation is crucial for understanding what I mean about stress levels. Most people don't see management going through the grinder (no matter what the circumstances are). That is why they are compensated.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So job insecurity translates to higher pay? No, it comes down to the higher level of "virtual" responsibility and the stress that comes with it. Everyone in these positions gets hyped up, telling themselves how important they are to the success of their operation, and that very well may be, but in reality the world would not stop even if they dropped off the face of the earth en masse.Kmarion wrote:
Isn't that what a progressive pay scale is all about? Not sweating your job 24 hours a day is also a great motivator. That is one of the reason I didn't take certain high paying jobs at UPS. The guys in upper management always worried about their jobs. The divorce rates for those positions are through the roof . It's a lot of stress. I was happy to stay a driver. I didn't have to babysit and I could do my "8 and the gate". I could have made more in management but I didn't want it. I've also seen upper management get axed (upclose) the second a stock starts to tank. They have a heavy burden. It's funny because I would hang out with drivers and their families and their homes were picture perfect. Some of my best friends are in management and they are always drinking, bitching about their jobs, yelling at their wives ..etc. They get paid more.. but they can keep it . When a company goes public they have got a lot to answer for. The average joe doesn't sit in on those conference calls where the management types are literally sweating their asses off because they didn't make the numbers. It's a very unforgiving position.
It's not all about money. I figure those guys are literally cutting years off of their life with the stress they endure. At least that's my own personal experience in corporate America.
Ty for the common sense logic. Corporations don't just throw money at people for no good reason. Especially those who are publicly owned.Braddock wrote:
It comes down to how easy it is to do a job, by that I mean if it is possible to do the job without specialist skills or education. If a job were respectable and at the same time high-paying and possible for pretty much anyone to do then everyone would be queuing up to do it. The fact of the matter is it's takes a lot of specialist education and skill to become a doctor and hence pay is high whereas an infantry soldier (no disrespect to soldiers) requires only a certain level of fitness and a certain level of mental toughness and hence pay isn't great.
The military has a hierarchical system itself, I'm sure special forces get a little more in their pay packet than regular grunts and if you put in the years and gain experience enough to graduate to General or Colonel your pay grade goes up also.
I think you two are right on the cusp of it, but I'd change it a little to this:Kmarion wrote:
I didn't say job insecurity translates to higher pay. Higher stress and higher responsibility translates to higher pay. There is a Huge difference between someone who does their job and someone who has to worry about how someone else is doing their job. Like I said I passed a few times on a promotion for that very fact. There is a higher expectation and burden of responsibility for higher paying positions. I'm of course telling you from my first hand experience. I'm not pretending that this is the way it is everywhere. However being involved in an inside operation is crucial for understanding what I mean about stress levels. Most people don't see management going through the grinder (no matter what the circumstances are). That is why they are compensated.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So job insecurity translates to higher pay? No, it comes down to the higher level of "virtual" responsibility and the stress that comes with it. Everyone in these positions gets hyped up, telling themselves how important they are to the success of their operation, and that very well may be, but in reality the world would not stop even if they dropped off the face of the earth en masse.Kmarion wrote:
Isn't that what a progressive pay scale is all about? Not sweating your job 24 hours a day is also a great motivator. That is one of the reason I didn't take certain high paying jobs at UPS. The guys in upper management always worried about their jobs. The divorce rates for those positions are through the roof . It's a lot of stress. I was happy to stay a driver. I didn't have to babysit and I could do my "8 and the gate". I could have made more in management but I didn't want it. I've also seen upper management get axed (upclose) the second a stock starts to tank. They have a heavy burden. It's funny because I would hang out with drivers and their families and their homes were picture perfect. Some of my best friends are in management and they are always drinking, bitching about their jobs, yelling at their wives ..etc. They get paid more.. but they can keep it . When a company goes public they have got a lot to answer for. The average joe doesn't sit in on those conference calls where the management types are literally sweating their asses off because they didn't make the numbers. It's a very unforgiving position.
It's not all about money. I figure those guys are literally cutting years off of their life with the stress they endure. At least that's my own personal experience in corporate America.
I really feel that those "necessary jobs" are paid less because their consumer base is Joe Taxpayer. Whenever we have a proposed tax cut referendum it's like boycotting an entire industry unless they lower their cost (payroll).
Example: http://changeintallahassee.blogspot.com … -says.html
It passed.Ty for the common sense logic. Corporations don't just throw money at people for no good reason. Especially those who are publicly owned.Braddock wrote:
It comes down to how easy it is to do a job, by that I mean if it is possible to do the job without specialist skills or education. If a job were respectable and at the same time high-paying and possible for pretty much anyone to do then everyone would be queuing up to do it. The fact of the matter is it's takes a lot of specialist education and skill to become a doctor and hence pay is high whereas an infantry soldier (no disrespect to soldiers) requires only a certain level of fitness and a certain level of mental toughness and hence pay isn't great.
The military has a hierarchical system itself, I'm sure special forces get a little more in their pay packet than regular grunts and if you put in the years and gain experience enough to graduate to General or Colonel your pay grade goes up also.
This isn't typical capitalism. There is practically no competition able to offer a superior product/service for more or less money in these industries. Private schools would be an exception and that is reflected in their payroll.chittydog wrote:
I think you two are right on the cusp of it, but I'd change it a little to this:
All jobs will pay the least amount possible to get a qualified person to take it.
Everyone likes capitalism, right? Well, this is the outcome of capitalism. Importance or value to society is almost meaningless. It's about the budget.
minority of taxpayers? Are you forgetting EVERY govt. job there is, including postal workers, street workers. Govt. office workers at local state and federal levels..Kmarion wrote:
They are a minority of taxpayers. Those same people are the ones who usually petition against tax cuts. Less revenue means less pay. Capiche?lowing wrote:
Ummmm, you do realize that everyone in those professions are also taxpayers just as much as you are right??Kmarion wrote:
Taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Politicians try to appease them. Teachers, Firemen, and Policemen are paid by unwilling customers.
I think there is. Instead of typical supply and demand or competition, you use taxes as a factor. You could have Harvard educated teachers, firefighters with all the latest gears or police who have the time and resources to concentrate on serious crimes rather than watch for minor traffic violations, but your taxes would be so exorbitant no one would live there. It's about a balance of how much the local government can tax its citizens before they start to move away and how much they can afford to pay civil servants with that amount of money.Kmarion wrote:
This isn't typical capitalism. There is practically no competition able to offer a superior product/service for more or less money in these industries. Private schools would be an exception and that is reflected in their payroll.chittydog wrote:
I think you two are right on the cusp of it, but I'd change it a little to this:
All jobs will pay the least amount possible to get a qualified person to take it.
Everyone likes capitalism, right? Well, this is the outcome of capitalism. Importance or value to society is almost meaningless. It's about the budget.
In the box, I agree. Staying in the box is boring when talking about ideas.Kmarion wrote:
I didn't say job insecurity translates to higher pay. Higher stress and higher responsibility translates to higher pay. There is a Huge difference between someone who does their job and someone who has to worry about how someone else is doing their job. Like I said I passed a few times on a promotion for that very fact. There is a higher expectation and burden of responsibility for higher paying positions. I'm of course telling you from my first hand experience. I'm not pretending that this is the way it is everywhere. However being involved in an inside operation is crucial for understanding what I mean about stress levels. Most people don't see management going through the grinder (no matter what the circumstances are). That is why they are compensated.
I really feel that those "necessary jobs" are paid less because their consumer base is Joe Taxpayer. Whenever we have a proposed tax cut referendum it's like boycotting an entire industry unless they lower their cost (payroll).
Example: http://changeintallahassee.blogspot.com … -says.html
It passed.
Fundamental jobs get fundamental pay. Complex jobs get higher pay. At the end of the day however, who was more useful? Following the money, we value the ad campaigns at the super bowl a hundred fold more than the people keeping our cities from burning. A simple job does not mean it is not hard, and a large pool of candidates does not make a job unimportant.Kmarion wrote:
Ty for the common sense logic. Corporations don't just throw money at people for no good reason. Especially those who are publicly owned.Braddock wrote:
It comes down to how easy it is to do a job, by that I mean if it is possible to do the job without specialist skills or education. If a job were respectable and at the same time high-paying and possible for pretty much anyone to do then everyone would be queuing up to do it. The fact of the matter is it's takes a lot of specialist education and skill to become a doctor and hence pay is high whereas an infantry soldier (no disrespect to soldiers) requires only a certain level of fitness and a certain level of mental toughness and hence pay isn't great.
The military has a hierarchical system itself, I'm sure special forces get a little more in their pay packet than regular grunts and if you put in the years and gain experience enough to graduate to General or Colonel your pay grade goes up also.
There are upsides and downsides to capitalism. This is a downside, but that does not completely devalue capitalism.chittydog wrote:
I think you two are right on the cusp of it, but I'd change it a little to this:
All jobs will pay the least amount possible to get a qualified person to take it.
Everyone likes capitalism, right? Well, this is the outcome of capitalism. Importance or value to society is almost meaningless. It's about the budget.
Anyone who can hang on to the back of a garbage truck is qualified to be a garbage man. Most healthy men can be trained to be soldiers in a matter of months. Anyone who can read a lesson plan can be a teacher (being a good teacher is totally different). And while every 15 year old in here thinks he's qualified to be a CEO, it's just not true. CEO's don't sip scotch, play golf and fly first class to meet their mistresses. I mean, they might do that occasionally, but they usually work long days, plan out corporate strategy, deal with the public, give speeches, etc. 99% of us wouldn't last two weeks in that job. We can't make an accurate assessment of what these jobs are worth with no knowledge of what they entail.
No I'm not forgetting. They are by far the minority. In 2006 The U.S. average was 142 state employees per 10,000 residents. My county has approximately 9,000-9,600 employees. The total population of my county is 1,157,738. So yea, a definite minority. The tax payer sets the pay scale. They are the market.lowing wrote:
minority of taxpayers? Are you forgetting EVERY govt. job there is, including postal workers, street workers. Govt. office workers at local state and federal levels..Kmarion wrote:
They are a minority of taxpayers. Those same people are the ones who usually petition against tax cuts. Less revenue means less pay. Capiche?lowing wrote:
Ummmm, you do realize that everyone in those professions are also taxpayers just as much as you are right??
Not hardly, they want tax breaks just as much as anyone else. They are just as tired as paying for the worthless as anyone else. The govt. does not set the pay scales. Like I said before, the pay rates are EXACTLY what the market will bare.
If we can not get our trash picked up at 6 bucks an hours then we will increase the pay until people start filling those jobs, unless of course we are gunna hire illegal immigrants now to run govt jobs. Which is another Jerry Springer show.
No they do not. The market does. I would pay a million bucks for an EMT if my kids were hurt in a car accident, and a stripper can make 150,000 a year while a teacher will make only 50k and you are telling me it is because the taxpayer dictates it? Nope, The market for beautiful naked women is in greater demand in America than a school teacher, that is it end of story. The taxpayer has got nothing to do with itKmarion wrote:
No I'm not forgetting. They are by far the minority. In 2006 The U.S. average was 142 state employees per 10,000 residents. My county has approximately 9,000-9,600 employees. The total population of my county is 1,157,738. So yea, a definite minority. The tax payer sets the pay scale. They are the market.lowing wrote:
minority of taxpayers? Are you forgetting EVERY govt. job there is, including postal workers, street workers. Govt. office workers at local state and federal levels..Kmarion wrote:
They are a minority of taxpayers. Those same people are the ones who usually petition against tax cuts. Less revenue means less pay. Capiche?
Not hardly, they want tax breaks just as much as anyone else. They are just as tired as paying for the worthless as anyone else. The govt. does not set the pay scales. Like I said before, the pay rates are EXACTLY what the market will bare.
If we can not get our trash picked up at 6 bucks an hours then we will increase the pay until people start filling those jobs, unless of course we are gunna hire illegal immigrants now to run govt jobs. Which is another Jerry Springer show.
Sometimes the box works. Boring, it might beFlaming_Maniac wrote:
In the box, I agree. Staying in the box is boring when talking about ideas.Kmarion wrote:
I didn't say job insecurity translates to higher pay. Higher stress and higher responsibility translates to higher pay. There is a Huge difference between someone who does their job and someone who has to worry about how someone else is doing their job. Like I said I passed a few times on a promotion for that very fact. There is a higher expectation and burden of responsibility for higher paying positions. I'm of course telling you from my first hand experience. I'm not pretending that this is the way it is everywhere. However being involved in an inside operation is crucial for understanding what I mean about stress levels. Most people don't see management going through the grinder (no matter what the circumstances are). That is why they are compensated.
I really feel that those "necessary jobs" are paid less because their consumer base is Joe Taxpayer. Whenever we have a proposed tax cut referendum it's like boycotting an entire industry unless they lower their cost (payroll).
Example: http://changeintallahassee.blogspot.com … -says.html
It passed.
Are there useless upper management positions? Of course. Are they eliminated? Everyday. I think you underestimate how cut throat corporate America is. Especially in these economic times.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Fundamental jobs get fundamental pay. Complex jobs get higher pay. At the end of the day however, who was more useful? Following the money, we value the ad campaigns at the super bowl a hundred fold more than the people keeping our cities from burning. A simple job does not mean it is not hard, and a large pool of candidates does not make a job unimportant.
Agreed.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There are upsides and downsides to capitalism. This is a downside, but that does not completely devalue capitalism.chittydog wrote:
I think you two are right on the cusp of it, but I'd change it a little to this:
All jobs will pay the least amount possible to get a qualified person to take it.
Everyone likes capitalism, right? Well, this is the outcome of capitalism. Importance or value to society is almost meaningless. It's about the budget.
Anyone who can hang on to the back of a garbage truck is qualified to be a garbage man. Most healthy men can be trained to be soldiers in a matter of months. Anyone who can read a lesson plan can be a teacher (being a good teacher is totally different). And while every 15 year old in here thinks he's qualified to be a CEO, it's just not true. CEO's don't sip scotch, play golf and fly first class to meet their mistresses. I mean, they might do that occasionally, but they usually work long days, plan out corporate strategy, deal with the public, give speeches, etc. 99% of us wouldn't last two weeks in that job. We can't make an accurate assessment of what these jobs are worth with no knowledge of what they entail.
Nothing you mentioned can be learned in school. Work ethic, business sense, communication skills, all things that are natural and at best honed in school. Any person with these skills can take a shot at running a business, and have about as close a shot as anyone at success. Reading about all the failed CEOs in the paper, it sure does look like a hit or miss proposition to me.
You miss obvious key differences. Like the option not to pay taxes is nonexistent. Standard market rules do not apply here. As far as I know people without children are still forced to pay for other peoples children to go to school.lowing wrote:
No they do not. The market does. I would pay a million bucks for an EMT if my kids were hurt in a car accident, and a stripper can make 150,000 a year while a teacher will make only 50k and you are telling me it is because the taxpayer dictates it? Nope, The market for beautiful naked women is in greater demand in America than a school teacher, that is it end of story. The taxpayer has got nothing to do with itKmarion wrote:
No I'm not forgetting. They are by far the minority. In 2006 The U.S. average was 142 state employees per 10,000 residents. My county has approximately 9,000-9,600 employees. The total population of my county is 1,157,738. So yea, a definite minority. The tax payer sets the pay scale. They are the market.lowing wrote:
minority of taxpayers? Are you forgetting EVERY govt. job there is, including postal workers, street workers. Govt. office workers at local state and federal levels..
Not hardly, they want tax breaks just as much as anyone else. They are just as tired as paying for the worthless as anyone else. The govt. does not set the pay scales. Like I said before, the pay rates are EXACTLY what the market will bare.
If we can not get our trash picked up at 6 bucks an hours then we will increase the pay until people start filling those jobs, unless of course we are gunna hire illegal immigrants now to run govt jobs. Which is another Jerry Springer show.
Why settle for the box the way it is though? Turn it upside down, it's a transmorgifier. On its side? Duplicator. Open side up? Time Machine.Kmarion wrote:
Sometimes the box works. Boring, it might be
Right. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the world, and we have how much debt? You underestimate American bureaucracy.Kmarion wrote:
Are there useless upper management positions? Of course. Are they eliminated? Everyday. I think you underestimate how cut throat corporate America is. Especially in these economic times.
I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers, and the entire market DOES have a choice. Pay them or not, if you do not want to pay them obviously someone will. IF the taxpayer had a choice NOT to pay a teacher they and the teachers salaery dropped t othe point where it isn't worth the hassle, and this trickled down ot poor education or no education at all, which then trickled down to no job, you will eventually find teachers saleries going back up. Because the market for good teachers went up. Again not dictated by the taxpayer, but by the demandKmarion wrote:
You miss obvious key differences. Like the option not to pay taxes is nonexistent. Standard market rules do not apply here. As far as I know people without children are still forced to pay for other peoples children to go to school.lowing wrote:
No they do not. The market does. I would pay a million bucks for an EMT if my kids were hurt in a car accident, and a stripper can make 150,000 a year while a teacher will make only 50k and you are telling me it is because the taxpayer dictates it? Nope, The market for beautiful naked women is in greater demand in America than a school teacher, that is it end of story. The taxpayer has got nothing to do with itKmarion wrote:
No I'm not forgetting. They are by far the minority. In 2006 The U.S. average was 142 state employees per 10,000 residents. My county has approximately 9,000-9,600 employees. The total population of my county is 1,157,738. So yea, a definite minority. The tax payer sets the pay scale. They are the market.
"What the market will bear" only applies when the entire market has a choice. There is not necessarily a market wide demand for every service. Yet there is a market wide cost that in built in no matter what your needs are.
I didn't settle. I mentioned before that I've often thought about it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why settle for the box the way it is though? Turn it upside down, it's a transmorgifier. On its side? Duplicator. Open side up? Time Machine.Kmarion wrote:
Sometimes the box works. Boring, it might beRight. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the world, and we have how much debt? You underestimate American bureaucracy.Kmarion wrote:
Are there useless upper management positions? Of course. Are they eliminated? Everyday. I think you underestimate how cut throat corporate America is. Especially in these economic times.
Again, there is no choice to not pay teachers. Are you talking hypothetical or reality? Because I think you just reiterated what I have been saying. Home schooling and private schooling aren't typical boycotts because they still pay taxes at the same time .lowing wrote:
I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers, and the entire market DOES have a choice. Pay them or not, if you do not want to pay them obviously someone will. IF the taxpayer had a choice NOT to pay a teacher they and the teachers salaery dropped t othe point where it isn't worth the hassle, and this trickled down ot poor education or no education at all, which then trickled down to no job, you will eventually find teachers saleries going back up. Because the market for good teachers went up. Again not dictated by the taxpayer, but by the demand
They don't know what they are missing.lowing wrote:
I think it is pretty safe to say that a stripper is not in high demand with most taxpayers
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There are basically two things worth having: respect and money. With those two things or a combination you can "spend" them to get just about anything you want, if you have enough of either one. Of the two however, money is obviously easier to work with in the everyday, and with enough money you can easily buy respect. Not fake, write me in your will respect, make enough money and you will be respected purely from the idea that you made that much money. Going the other way is possible, but not as simple.
So why is it that we handsomely reward jobs that (supposedly) require large amount of technical skill with money, while jobs that are vital to the basic workings of society are rewarded almost entirely in respect? The firefighter, the soldier, the policeman, the teacher, all jobs that the world would literally come to a halt without, and yet they are compensated so poorly in monetary terms? Do we believe that we can make up for it by putting them on a pedestal, or do we truly not value these jobs? Do we feel sorry for them, and would we not feel so bad if they got better pay? Are we putting them in a lower income bracket to keep them under our control, to make sure those most functional in our society remain complacent at the risk of complete financial instability?
The average foot soldier has signed a contract to put his life on the line in exchange for little compensation, while their 4 star desk jockey counterpart sits comfortably in his office making more money. The average teacher that is everyday teaching future generations the technical and social skills they will need to make tomorrow a better time than today, and their controlling superiors work administrative jobs for better pay. Why can't the pyramid be flipped upside down?
Why is skill respected and greasing the wheels of the mundane compensated?
I responded to lowing about essentially this.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Disclaimer: end of hot day/I-5 traffic irritation; don't take personally.
I couldn't help but notice...what's this 'we' and 'our' I keep reading in your post? What am I or my coworkers doing that belittles firemen, soldiers and teachers? Has it occurred to you that some people turn down high-paying jobs to do something they love or feel they have a responsibility to do? Have you noticed that for all the things money can afford you, the obscenely wealthy are often depressed?
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I agree, and without these dedicated people we would be at a complete loss in these areas. The fact remains however that money is easily the most functionally necessary part of our society, so why can't we compensate them with money? These are basic jobs that keeps the everyday in check, but we want to skimp on it.
My point to most of the responders here is we live in a society where vital jobs are only filled by people dedicated to making the world a better place at the expense of personal wealth, while the rest of us struggle to scramble up the corporate ladder to effectively useless jobs solely in the name of money. Why this situation can't be rectified, besides the fact that tradition is the bedrock of progress, I don't understand. Capitalism at its worst.
Of all that you mentioned, farming and construction are really the only ones that we could not do without. Construction it is not so much the actual workers, but the architects that design our living spaces. To put the basic, essential buildings we need however very little skill is required. If it could be done better by a robot than a human, it isn't a high skill job. Teaching, fighting fires, fighting wars, law enforcement...these things require initiative and decision making, along with the technical and physical aspects of the jobs.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And for all that pedestals are mentioned, you certainly brought up the four food groups. Firefighter, soldier, cop and teacher...very original. Could society function if that's all anyone did? What about banking, real estate, construction, mail, machinery, medicine and telecommunications? Farming, shipping and retail? Would a firefighter be able to get to a fire if all (yeah, I know some are) the roads were haphazardly planned and striped without a care? Would a cop be nearly as useful if his car didn't work? And aren't people who help facilitate and organize these things also contributing to society? Who do firefighters and police work for? What does a soldier fight to protect? From whom did teachers learn to teach, and who will they return the favor to? Yeah, I know you allowed for others jobs, but in mentioning the endlessly cliched ones, you did a bit of a disservice to others.
The rest of the jobs allow our society to geographically expand and increase in complexity, but don't add any fundamental depth to it. For example, without city planning, we would just have smaller cities. We could not reach the level of I suppose "perfection" that we have today, but we could get along without it. It's things we have developed over time to make our lives easier, and I do not dispute this point or even see a problem in it. The problem lies in monetarily valuing these jobs so much more than the ones we could not function without, period.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The jobs I have mentioned are some of the ones fundamental to our basic life. Without firemen the results are obvious, without policemen we descend to anarchy, without teachers we start moving backwards, without soldiers we get run over by whoever doesn't like us. Without doctors more people die from disease than necessary, but concerning society this doesn't effect us much. Arguably it would breed a physically stronger race.
Do they really require more skill? Do you think a waiter at a fine dining restaurant makes less than a park ranger? No, some jobs require different skills, but I would be hard pressed to say that jobs vary greatly in the level of skill required to do them. You can refine any job to an art in efficiency and effectiveness.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Why we handsomely reward jobs that require a bit more skill than lower-paying ones? Could it be because...not everyone has the skill to do them but someone needs it done? I know there's a bit of inequity where paychecks are concerned, but flattening them out isn't going to work. The government would have to intervene and the man doing the more complicated job would be tempted to move to the easier but equal-paying job, and then the government would have to intervene again and...well, it's been tried.
In an age without global communication at our fingertips.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_patton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig
etc.
Going to keep this short. So, we don't need medicine, but we need police.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
~~~
Wait, what? How was that relevant?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
In an age without global communication at our fingertips.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_patton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig
etc.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-08-11 18:06:10)
Is this a trick question? Without medicine the average live expectancy goes down, without police we descend into anarchy.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Going to keep this short. So, we don't need medicine, but we need police.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
~~~
...yeah.