AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6145|what

Do garbage collectors really benefit mankind the way a doctor or scientist is able?

They may be a temporary fix to your problem, but they aren't really going to benefit the entire race in anyway.

Let's face it all they do is more the garbage to a landfill.

Look at it on a global scale. The guy building the car works harder than the guy who designs it, but the guy who designs has more tacit knowledge which you won't easily replace simply by another worker.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6398|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


The CEO of Nokia I'm sure would be a real useful person to have around after a nuclear holocaust compared to a soldier.
I think this is a 'chicken or egg' situation. One has its uses, the other one has its.

But in a time of lacking, most people would step up to the plate and do what had to be done.
They are as if not more useless than anyone else in that situation, so why are they worth millions of dollars more now?
Because the worth of money is entirely psychological.  The psychology behind trade and material worth is unfortunately only vaguely connected to worth in a survival sense.  We moved away from the domination of survivalist worth as soon as we left our caves.

Money is only worth something because it's more convenient than bartering, but we accept this convenience via somewhat shortsighted capitalism.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6712|California

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


The CEO of Nokia I'm sure would be a real useful person to have around after a nuclear holocaust compared to a soldier.
I think this is a 'chicken or egg' situation. One has its uses, the other one has its.

But in a time of lacking, most people would step up to the plate and do what had to be done.
They are as if not more useless than anyone else in that situation, so why are they worth millions of dollars more now?
Because they dare to do what none of us really want to do.

No man in their right mind would run into a burning building. No man in their right mind would walk towards a 100,000 acre forest fire with 100-foot high flames, carrying only a shovel. No man in their right mind would approach a 300 pound Samoan man on LSD to handcuff him.

You aren't buying the person, or the profession they represent. You are buying trust. You trust your kids to learn from a teacher. You trust a police officer to save you if you need it. You trust a firefighter to get your baby out of the house.

I would rather pay $1,000,000 for a firefighter or police officer to do what he/she does, then the CEO of Nokia.
Tripulaci0n
Member
+14|6149

stryyker wrote:

I would rather pay $1,000,000 for a firefighter or police officer to do what he/she does, then the CEO of Nokia.
You would love Communism!
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6699|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

stryyker wrote:


I think this is a 'chicken or egg' situation. One has its uses, the other one has its.

But in a time of lacking, most people would step up to the plate and do what had to be done.
They are as if not more useless than anyone else in that situation, so why are they worth millions of dollars more now?
Because the worth of money is entirely psychological.  The psychology behind trade and material worth is unfortunately only vaguely connected to worth in a survival sense.  We moved away from the domination of survivalist worth as soon as we left our caves.

Money is only worth something because it's more convenient than bartering, but we accept this convenience via somewhat shortsighted capitalism.
Exactly. Over time we are led to monetarily value jobs that have much less "real" value than their respected counterparts.

Could the U.S. or any service oriented society ever move back to valuing basic jobs over complex but in some ways useless jobs? Could this ever pose a problem?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6398|North Carolina

Tripulaci0n wrote:

stryyker wrote:

I would rather pay $1,000,000 for a firefighter or police officer to do what he/she does, then the CEO of Nokia.
You would love Communism!
Uh... not really.  Communist systems weren't exactly generous to their public servants either.

The funny thing is...  Whether it's capitalism or Communism, human nature tends to create an elite class of rulers for every society that hoards its wealth from most of the rest.  Greed is universal.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6712|California

Tripulaci0n wrote:

stryyker wrote:

I would rather pay $1,000,000 for a firefighter or police officer to do what he/she does, then the CEO of Nokia.
You would love Communism!
I like communism on paper, but not practically.

I'm glad my taxes pay for the public services I have. I know that anytime I needed to call 9-1-1, the police/fire would be there in under 2.5 minutes. Not so sure about the teachers around here though... our district has some... embezzlement issues.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6398|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


They are as if not more useless than anyone else in that situation, so why are they worth millions of dollars more now?
Because the worth of money is entirely psychological.  The psychology behind trade and material worth is unfortunately only vaguely connected to worth in a survival sense.  We moved away from the domination of survivalist worth as soon as we left our caves.

Money is only worth something because it's more convenient than bartering, but we accept this convenience via somewhat shortsighted capitalism.
Exactly. Over time we are led to monetarily value jobs that have much less "real" value than their respected counterparts.

Could the U.S. or any service oriented society ever move back to valuing basic jobs over complex but in some ways useless jobs? Could this ever pose a problem?
One of the disadvantages to modern life and everchanging technology is that industries and economies become more and more materialistic and specialized.  We're at a point where what you're talking about is probably not possible for a country our size.  However, certain smaller countries seem to value their public servants appropriately (like Norway).  There seems to be a cultural critical mass that occurs somewhere around 20 or 30 million people.  Once your country rises beyond that range in population, the overall system begins to fall inward due to its own weight.

One thing that has allowed us to adapt better than most countries our size is that we have a pretty good separation of federal and state powers in government.  California almost functions like it is its own country sometimes, for example.  Still, I think we're starting to see signs that maybe we should split into multiple countries or maybe just further limit the jurisdiction of the feds and put more responsibility in the hands of the states.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6699|67.222.138.85
I think that a large part of it is not necessary the division of our government, but our natural geographic division. There is a lot of open and sparsely populated area that forces people to be a little more self-reliant, as well as social divisions. (east coast, west coast, deep south, etc.) In some ways this makes us like separate countries more than a political system ever could.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6398|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I think that a large part of it is not necessary the division of our government, but our natural geographic division. There is a lot of open and sparsely populated area that forces people to be a little more self-reliant, as well as social divisions. (east coast, west coast, deep south, etc.) In some ways this makes us like separate countries more than a political system ever could.
Very true.  Geography is definitely a big factor (no pun intended).

What you're talking about is often referred to as sectionalism.  It has been a continual strain on our system in terms of guiding social policies, but it does provide the independent mindset necessary for organizing regional infrastructure in such a way as to keep things like education, policing, and emergency services mostly functional.

But, also like you said earlier, this also provides for a lot of variance in the services.  You're in Texas, right?  I don't know a whole lot about Texas, but I get the impression that most of it is heavily oriented toward the private sector and that the low taxes there sometimes results in lower quality education and law enforcement.  Still, you do have the advantage of attracting a lot of jobs there because of the low taxes as well.

A lot of the higher tax states have better quality education, law enforcement, and social systems, but they have the burden of scaring away a lot of business.  Finding work in those states tends to be a little harder.  The cost of living is usually higher as well.

It's a difficult balance to attain.  North Carolina tends to err more on the side of low taxes, so we have a low cost of living, finding work is relatively easy, but our social systems are somewhat lacking, as is our education in certain areas.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well thank you Kmarion for calling bullshit for me and bringing in your usual flurry of sources.
I was sourcing the teacher pay grade after someone challenged you. I also said Doctors are one of the exceptions. You're being a bit defensive. I've often thought about the same thing and asked the same questions. I've come to the conclusion that in most cases the uppers usually (not always) get paid more in order to motivate the lowers (the guts) in a company to succeed. In a lot of major corporations it is the stock owners that dictate what the guys at the top get paid. This is almost always based on the companies performance on the whole (vis a vis profits). As for the teachers, firemen, etc..  they are usually a victim of the states budget.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6354|Vancouver
It's simple economics. Apply your supply and demand laws. Those positions which few are willing to do or few can do are more highly paid because if they weren't of excellent pay, no one would enter those professions at all. Soldiers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement all can be done by a wide variety of people, and many are willing to do so at the wages available. It's almost purely economics.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6699|67.222.138.85
Turq I am in Texas and your assessment is very good, but I live in a relatively rich suburban town with one of the best education systems in the nation. Got a pretty good end of the stick tbh, because my parents were willing to pay more money to live where we are specifically for the education system and crime rate.

Kmarion I was not being sarcastic at all. In your classic style, you took the time to find sources I would not have bothered to. I find the motivation argument irrelevant however, because money and respect are easily the best motivators and those don't come from a good CEO. Business models and direction of the company is what the upper tiers are about, middle management provides motivation.

Drakef wrote:

It's simple economics. Apply your supply and demand laws. Those positions which few are willing to do or few can do are more highly paid because if they weren't of excellent pay, no one would enter those professions at all. Soldiers, teachers, firefighters, law enforcement all can be done by a wide variety of people, and many are willing to do so at the wages available. It's almost purely economics.
Right, show me someone that would rather be a teacher than a president of a multi-million dollar company. As for the "can" do, do I have to start listening the number of people that are high ranks in a company by birthright? What makes them apt to the position?
Tripulaci0n
Member
+14|6149
People are lazy and stupid. Anyone can make millions if they try hard enough. Most people just don't want to spend the time necessary and sacrifice some fun along the way to get it.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6699|67.222.138.85

Tripulaci0n wrote:

People are lazy and stupid. Anyone can make millions if they try hard enough. Most people just don't want to spend the time necessary and sacrifice some fun along the way to get it.
Though I agree, that has stunningly nothing to do with the point.
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6665|Colorado

Kmarion wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

Hmm I don't know where you live but here in Denver the teachers get paid very well, my g/f's sister & aunt are both teachers & clear 70k a year.
Not sure what everyone else makes but if you think these people make the world go around I'd have to laugh, sure they are important to certain functions within society but come on, makes the world go around>?! Try big business & innovation makes the world go around to me & people willing to devote themselves to special skills sets should be rewarded.
Holy crap that's high for a teacher.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All … ers/Salary
Well both of them do have their masters in education so that adds at least 20k plus annual raises. It only takes 2 years, teachers who don't get it are retarded.
Tripulaci0n
Member
+14|6149
Sort of does. You have to try a lot harder to become the CEO of a major company than you do to be a school teacher or public servant (fireman/policeman/etc).
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6699|67.222.138.85

Tripulaci0n wrote:

Sort of does. You have to try a lot harder to become the CEO of a major company than you do to be a school teacher or public servant (fireman/policeman/etc).
My entire point is that we have set up a system where it takes more work to get to a job that pays more, but those same jobs are some of the least important ones in society. We are paying a premium for relatively simple jobs.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion I was not being sarcastic at all. In your classic style, you took the time to find sources I would not have bothered to. I find the motivation argument irrelevant however, because money and respect are easily the best motivators and those don't come from a good CEO. Business models and direction of the company is what the upper tiers are about, middle management provides motivation.
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.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Jrdeacs
Member
+22|5892
Hell Yea mate...

Some U.S teachers website wrote:

Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194.

South Dakota had the lowest average salary in 2002-03, at $32,414. The other states in the bottom tier were Montana, at $35,754; Mississippi, at $35,135; North Dakota, at $33,869; and Oklahoma, at $33,277. Also in the lowest tier were the Virgin Islands, at $34,764; Guam at $34,738; and Puerto Rico, at $22,164.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6682|Tampa Bay Florida
Not according to lowing
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6644|USA

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 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"?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Politicians try to appease them. Teachers, Firemen, and Policemen are paid by unwilling customers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6644|USA

Kmarion wrote:

Taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Politicians try to appease them. Teachers, Firemen, and Policemen are paid by unwilling customers.
Ummmm, you do realize that everyone in those professions are also taxpayers just as much as you are right??
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6548

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Taxpayers don't like to pay taxes. Politicians try to appease them. Teachers, Firemen, and Policemen are paid by unwilling customers.
Ummmm, you do realize that everyone in those professions are also taxpayers just as much as you are right??
I'd say he does realise this fact. It takes nothing away from his very valid point. There is a cost associated with living in a functional society of human beings. If you don't pay that price then you get anarchy. Simple as that.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard