4 ms·

I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.) What exactly do you mean

by js8 9y ago

I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.) What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples? To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?

pault 9y ago
For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case. Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself. I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.
  - pault 9y ago
    In this (stretched to breaking) analogy, drivers aren't necessarily fungible since most of them will drive the car off a cliff, and the great ones will turn a Ford into a Ferrari.
- js8 9y ago
  > For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible Everybody in this thread agrees that it is indeed the case. However, the mystery is why some people see it that way. > managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations The point of the car analogy was that without workers, managers are nothing, just like car without wheels or engine is useless. In that situation, why would you say one is more important?
conanbatt 9y ago
There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students. Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, etc). About the comparison: It depends, if you have a car without engine and a car without wheels, which one is easier for you to fix.
- js8 9y ago
  > A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    As this conversation goes, its nature, it lacks any concept of morality. Why is a rock a rock is not a moral question, and it doesn't merit one in my opinion. I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.
    - js8 9y ago
      The OP asked: "Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why" You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command." I asked: "why do you think this is the case" And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think. Why do you, personally, think the work of the manager is more valuable? So I was wondering how you understand the value. Based on your response, you seem to value scarcity of either positions or suitable candidates. So do you think the president should have the highest salary? There is only one. I am also not convinced that scarcity itself is "providing value".

by js8 9y ago

pault 9y ago

For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case. Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself. I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.
- pault 9y ago
  In this (stretched to breaking) analogy, drivers aren't necessarily fungible since most of them will drive the car off a cliff, and the great ones will turn a Ford into a Ferrari.
js8 9y ago
> For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible Everybody in this thread agrees that it is indeed the case. However, the mystery is why some people see it that way. > managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations The point of the car analogy was that without workers, managers are nothing, just like car without wheels or engine is useless. In that situation, why would you say one is more important?

conanbatt 9y ago

There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students. Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, etc). About the comparison: It depends, if you have a car without engine and a car without wheels, which one is easier for you to fix.

js8 9y ago
> A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  As this conversation goes, its nature, it lacks any concept of morality. Why is a rock a rock is not a moral question, and it doesn't merit one in my opinion. I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.
  - js8 9y ago
    The OP asked: "Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why" You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command." I asked: "why do you think this is the case" And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think. Why do you, personally, think the work of the manager is more valuable? So I was wondering how you understand the value. Based on your response, you seem to value scarcity of either positions or suitable candidates. So do you think the president should have the highest salary? There is only one. I am also not convinced that scarcity itself is "providing value".