5 ms·

The average citizen values YOUR garbage collector far less than they value Oprah. They value their own, certainly, but that value is reflected by the enormous

• wturner 9y ago
  I still can't get my head around the logic that a garbage collector gets paid next to nothing relative to someone who is paid millions to talk into a microphone and the reasoning is that the latter "provides more value". "They provide more value" just seems like a very partial catch phrase to make this all look less absurd than it actually is.
  • j2bax 9y ago
    I think the difference is Oprah provides a little value to a lot of people (whether it be therapeutic, entertainment or what have you). Collectively, she is providing a lot more "value" because of the platform and distribution she has achieved. Your garbage collector provides great value to you, but no value to the grand majority of people.
    • wturner 9y ago
      My point was that each garbage collector is more valuable to the person paying for them than Oprah Winfrey is, but Oprah makes hundreds of millions of dollars and the garbage collector makes a typical wage. I understand the reasoning that Oprah provides a little value that is distributed to a lot of people and that the garbage industry in its totality is more valuable than Oprah. With all that, I still think it's a bit of a partial way to summarize whatever is happening here - and something about it just seems misleading. Then again, maybe I just think societies values and priorities are bizarre.
      • mod 9y ago
        I think it's painfully obvious that Oprah provides more value than one garbage man, so I don't see the disconnect. Also your above comment even says that "to the person paying them." I pay Oprah and the garbage man, respectively, what they're worth to me. I guess it hurts your feelings that Oprah has more value than your local garbage man, but it's just a fact. You can probably come up with the reasons yourself: personality, name recognition, how easily replaced, etc.
        • Terr_ 9y ago
          Y'all're getting way too hung up on the colloquial connotations of "value" here. It's descriptive, not normative. This is marginal value, the stuff that someone would give up in order to have one more of a thing. A celebrity often makes money because, for whatever reason, nobody can easily and reliably produce an equivalent one on demand. Folks working for wages in less-glamorous positions are doing valuable things for society, but fundamentally their pay is based on how easily society could replace them.
        • wturner 9y ago
          I never said Oprah Doesn't provide more value than one garbage man. I am saying that I don't understand how a task that is literally needed for society to function is less valuable than one that is negligible for society to function and I don't understand why the person who does the more needed task is paid less than the person who does the negligible task. It's really a philosophical question about values but I think entertaining it is more elaborate than a simple catch phrase. Also hierarchy of needs vs wants etc all come into play. And you are guessing wrong. From what I've read she is probably one of the better people I would like to see in the role if "Billionaire"
          • mac01021 9y ago
            > I don't understand why the person who does the more needed task is paid less than the person who does the negligible task. If your garbage man cost the community $80k per year, there would probably be 100 other dudes, all just as good at collecting refuse, offering to take his job and only charge $50k. That doesn't mean the disposal of all that waste disposal is not worth $80k (or $250k) to the community, but competition allows the community to pay less than the value it places on the service. I bet there are also 1000 people lining up to underbid Oprah on whatever deals it is she is making with her partners(broadcast networks? advertisers?). But none of those people will attract nearly as many eyeballs. From the partner's perspective, it's simply a matter of choosing which TV personality will bring the most revenue (over and above their fee), and that's Oprah.
    • michaelmrose 9y ago
      People are a disparate group and their needs matter only in proportion to their wealth. Something can provide negative value for a million people and be extremely valuable to bill gates and earn a lot of money.
  • jonbarker 9y ago
    Many people kind of happy produces a higher area under the curve than a few people really happy. Watching Oprah makes many people kind of happy. Your garbage collector every day makes you and the people on your block very happy (or relieved).
  • colefichter 9y ago
    The reason is that Oprah operates in what's called a "winner take all market". There are thousands of baristas, servers, and (probably) garbage collectors with failed dreams of stardom in Hollywood, etc. But you don't hear about them. Garbage collecting is not winner take all. No single garbage collector can corner the market because the role doesn't require unique talent in the same way that being a famous talk show host does. Oprah's value is her unique personality, brand, style, mannerisms, business savvy, etc rather than any sort of utility (like removing up your rotting trash) that she may or may not provide.