11 ms·
You're changing the subject. We aren't talking about the artist's or scientist's satisfaction, but whether the amount of money they make reflects their usefuln
by dgabriel 16y ago
You're changing the subject. We aren't talking about the artist's or scientist's satisfaction, but whether the amount of money they make reflects their usefulness to society.
Would you argue that a scientist is less important than a bar tender based on their incomes?
- CWuestefeld 16y agoI must admit that I was careless in my terminology. When I said salary, I should have said total compensation. That, of course, covers the money he's paid, but also benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.), stability, satisfaction from a stimulating job, respect, and if he's lucky, perhaps the feeling that Feynman describes when he'd discovered something new and was for a short time the only human who has ever held that piece of knowledge. But you're being a little careless, too, when you throw around a word like "important". Can you be more specific?