3 ms·
I am not saying any of that, no. I'm simply explaining why nannies don't earn much. Still, they earn more than monks, who in some societies are seen as pillars
by Grustaf 9y ago
I am not saying any of that, no.
I'm simply explaining why nannies don't earn much. Still, they earn more than monks, who in some societies are seen as pillars of existence in a very literal sense.
My point is again that income is set by supply and demand, not value in some deeper sense. The market "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"
- projektir 9y agoWell, there's also a lot of supply of sprinters. Anyone can be a sprinter. There are far more sprinters than the world needs. Yet, nonetheless, there is value found in the Olympic sprinter. Or the NCAA sprinter. Why? Well, because a high skill in sprinting is valued as opposed to a lower skill in sprinting. It's something you can train at, get better at, and get recognized for. Something that would set you apart from all the other sprinters. Well, where are the Olympic nannies earning millions of dollars, then? If you're going to talk about supply and demand, you may want to think about why there's demand for something. Why is there demand for Olympic sprinters? Why is there no demand for Olympic teachers? That's really the question.
- Grustaf 9y agoSimple. Teaching doesn't scale, an olympic sprinter will do their thing in front of hundreds of millions of viewers.