6 ms·

Trust me, I don't work 3x harder than most of the people I make 3x of. My wife is a teacher and I am in tech, I make 3x her salary. She works way more and spend

by lghh 8y ago

Trust me, I don't work 3x harder than most of the people I make 3x of. My wife is a teacher and I am in tech, I make 3x her salary. She works way more and spends more of both her physical and emotional labor on her job. I work hard and I do good work, but what she does is not even in the same stratosphere as what I do. I'm not innovating anything, I'm just writing decent code. She's finding new ways to help kids learn. Which sounds more demoralizing?

linkmotif 8y ago
Teaching is a straw man. Teachers get paid poorly because (1) Americans don’t actually care about education, as evidenced by the amount teachers make, and (2) it’s a government-based monopoly that prioritizes “benefits” and graft (tenure, etc) over salary
- lghh 8y ago
  Straw men don't exist, my wife does exist.
  - linkmotif 8y ago
    But you use her in logic based arguments and then appeal to emotion so.... which is it? Your gripe shouldn’t be with rich people, it should be with Americans en masse, who yelled and screamed all Sunday night in my apartment building about grown men running into each other on TV with such a passion you’d think they were educating their children. And then they’re poor? Boo hoo. Maybe if Americans cared about education, showed passion for it like they do about Football, I would understand. You get paid 3x your wife because Americans care about what you produce, and they don't care about what she produces. It’s easy to soak the rich but take a look around you, people prioritize everything except the one thing that matters: education.
    - lghh 8y ago
      > But you use her in logic based arguments and then appeal to emotion so.... which is it? My appeal was to the amount of effort required between jobs. > And then they’re poor? Boo hoo. Poor people are allowed to have hobbies and interests just as well as the rich. This sentiment is disgusting and you should be ashamed. > You get paid 3x your wife because Americans care about what you produce, and they don't care about what she produces. Trust me, I have worked jobs where I have been paid very, very well where nobody has cared about what I produced except the couple of people who were paying me.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - linkmotif 8y ago
        You won’t shame me. You can’t make me feel ashamed of my father, who got my family out of poverty and didn’t even know how to order a beer or a meal at a restaurant until he was 55 because that’s just not how we spent money. Your perspective is rooted in the heights of privilege and entitlement, wherein first world people can live cozy secure lives, entitled to leisure and “hobbies” on the backs of second and third worlders who facelessly supply us cheap goods that our rich should provision for us just because we live in a country that enslaves the world’s poor. That “hobbies” and “leisure” as a human right doesn’t give you pause is disturbing, because if you don’t earn your hobbies and leisure and expect them anyway, you’re a piece of work given what goes on in the world to make our leisure possible. Americans live in a Disney fairyland created by Ronald Reagan and the 1980s. Why should poor people in America be entitled to 50,000 USD when people who work and create the things these poor people say they absolutely need to consume make 5,000 USD. What haught, what arrogance. What willful ignorance. That’s what’s disgusting.
        lghh 8y ago
        > You can’t make me feel ashamed of my father, who got my family out of poverty and didn’t even know how to order a beer or a meal at a restaurant until he was 55 because that’s just not how we spent money. I never asked you to feel ashamed for that. I'm asking that you don't require everyone go though the same struggles as revenge. Get this... I also think the people who are working to create the things that you are talking about should be able to have hobbies. I also think the people making the things that get consumed should be able to make enough to consume them. You are trying to turn my argument in to what you want it to be, not what it clearly is. You are saying that, because I think people should be able to have better lives, I am saying some people should not have better lives? That doesn't even make sense. Do better.
- athenot 8y ago
  > (1) Americans don’t actually care about education, as evidenced by the amount teachers make Americans care very much about education but the system we're in doesn't. Kids have no value in a market economy until they have purchase power (or influence on purchase power). In a highly inequal society that means very fancy private schools, for those who can pay. And neglected public schools for the rest. The outlook of a market economy is not 18 years, it's 1 year (and often quarter-to-quarter).
  - magduf 8y ago
    >Americans care very much about education but the system we're in doesn't. This is demonstrably false. If Americans cared about education, they would demand their local governments do a better job of providing it. But they don't. Those governments pay teachers poorly, which doesn't attract quality people to the profession, and the taxpayers just complain about their taxes being too high.
    - nybble41 8y ago
      The ones who care about their kids' education enough to pay for it themselves—not just lobby to make others pay for it—and have the resources to do something about it tend to put their kids in private schools. That leaves only those who either lack sufficient resources to pay more or simply don't care. In any case, we actually spend quite a bit on education, despite arguably worse outcomes than some other countries that spend less. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to improve anything. The focus needs to be on spending the significant resources already allocated to education more effectively. The attempts to equalize outcomes regardless of the amount of effort students (and parents) put into their education certainly don't help. Assuming they get their way and everyone is assured of equal pay for equal "effort"—why bother studying if cashiering at a fast-food joint offers about the same quality-of-life as managing a successful company, or performing leading-edge research and development?
  - linkmotif 8y ago
    Kids have massive purchasing power, a fact which was discovered by marketers in the 50s and cultivated extensively since then. Marketers back to then discovered they could actually market directly to kids, which wasn’t a thing before and something people take for granted now. In American households kids drive massive percentages of household spending, not just indirectly but directly as well. > Kids have no value in a market economy until they have purchase power Market economies are based entirely on investment. Market economies value investment and therefore kids. If people aren’t investing in kids, it’s because of market economy? as a matter of fact Americans invest tons of money in early childhood education and their children at an early age. It’s an American obsession. The problem is that outcomes have little to do with dollars invested. American culture at this point has devolved into pseudo fascist corporation and leisure identity worship, so people don’t even know what education is. Being a “geek” in America now means you watch tv and play video games. Buying your kid a tablet and plopping then down with some STEM edutainment software isn’t education. It’s just unfortunate, miguided ignorance, and we get what we pay for.
shanusmagnus 8y ago
It's worth asking why your wife doesn't switch to your job, to make 3x the salary. Either a) she couldn't do it, in which case by extension it boils down to supply and demand, or b) she doesn't want to do it, because she gets a whole bunch of joy from the job which is invisibly priced into compensation (and which indirectly goes back to supply and demand.) I don't see the discrepancy as any kind of market failure.
- adamsea 8y ago
  > "she gets a whole bunch of joy from the job which is invisibly priced into compensation" This is a pretty naive statement.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    How so? Many people (women even moreso than men in my experience) prioritize fulfilling work over higher paying work. This is observable in, for example, people pursuing careers in saturated industries like journalism, art, or acting, as well as going for "more meaningful" startup jobs instead of FANG jobs. I personally switched from rocket science to tech and then to a FANG so I could get increased compensation and have a chance of catching up to Bay Area housing prices. My compensation increased 3x in the process. Most of my peers wouldn't do that.
  - metalchianti 8y ago
    Could you elaborate? If not (b) then it seems she would certainly fall into (a).
- athenot 8y ago
  > I don't see the discrepancy as any kind of market failure. What his story underlines is that teaching young human beings about navigating life is rewarded 3x less than churing out code that fits some business objective. The market doesn't care about people, it cares about profit. In that system, human life is only important to the degree that it helps market dynamics.
  - 8y ago
abapologist 8y ago
Pay isn’t connected to effort of labor though.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It also isn't connected to the value the job brings to society, or even to the long-term impact on the market economy.
  - abapologist 8y ago
    This may be true as well. One thing money has going for it, versus impact on society, is that we can measure it. Might not be a great metric, but we as a society have failed to invent and value a better one.
torbjorn 8y ago
The teachers' situation is more demoralizing for sure. Capitalism would explain the difference between a tech worker's pay and a teacher's pay as based on skill and worker scarcity, not on who works the hardest.
malvosenior 8y ago
It's probably >3x more difficult to find someone with your skills to employ. It may be easy to you but to someone who doesn't know how to program, your work is unimaginably difficult.
- avgDev 8y ago
  I would also argue that writing code is a grind. I would enjoy writing code maybe 2-4 hours a day tops but when you want to get something done and code for 7 hours straight it is really tough to do. Learning new concepts all the time, emotional waves, errors that can impact companies on a large scale. Programming is really difficult and requires constant engagement in the industry.
  - sigi45 8y ago
    Yes its work. But you know what is also work? Cleaning shit from others the whole day. I also can imagine selling stuff is draining or catering for others. I'm valuated more because i'm more needed and a company can make more money with me than without me. This still doesn't make it fair.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      > This still doesn't make it fair. You're not taking into account the thousands of hours people have to put in to learning how to program. That's real work and sacrifice. It's not unfair that that investment pays off.
      - sigi45 8y ago
        But those people got the chance to do it. They got the lucky direction. They got the smarts, the parents who read to them, etc.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        Maybe, maybe not (I know I didn't have all of those things). It's undeniable they had to work hard to become good programmers though.
ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
It's not about how hard you work. It's about how many people can do what you do. Don't sell yourself short, in tech you have skills that only a small percentage of the population are capable of doing. We might all say "Programming is easy" or "I really only work half the day" but for many people Programming is seen as witchcraft, and for many what would take a skilled developer an hour would take a whole day (or worse, they might just do the task manually). If your not satisfied with programming you can of course go into teaching, if that's what you think is truly fulfilling.
- sigi45 8y ago
  I think very similiar to ighhh. It doesn't make it fair that in theory 'everyone' could get into it or that it takes probably much longer for someone to do my job than the other way around (like yes i think i would be able to sell things). I don't know how we should incentive instead but it doesn't make it fair.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    You're just basing your view of what's fair on time spent working/physical labor. If you base your view of what's fair on skillsets, and what one person can do, and what one person can not, it makes more sense.

by lghh 8y ago

linkmotif 8y ago

Teaching is a straw man. Teachers get paid poorly because (1) Americans don’t actually care about education, as evidenced by the amount teachers make, and (2) it’s a government-based monopoly that prioritizes “benefits” and graft (tenure, etc) over salary

lghh 8y ago
Straw men don't exist, my wife does exist.
- linkmotif 8y ago
  But you use her in logic based arguments and then appeal to emotion so.... which is it? Your gripe shouldn’t be with rich people, it should be with Americans en masse, who yelled and screamed all Sunday night in my apartment building about grown men running into each other on TV with such a passion you’d think they were educating their children. And then they’re poor? Boo hoo. Maybe if Americans cared about education, showed passion for it like they do about Football, I would understand. You get paid 3x your wife because Americans care about what you produce, and they don't care about what she produces. It’s easy to soak the rich but take a look around you, people prioritize everything except the one thing that matters: education.
  - lghh 8y ago
    > But you use her in logic based arguments and then appeal to emotion so.... which is it? My appeal was to the amount of effort required between jobs. > And then they’re poor? Boo hoo. Poor people are allowed to have hobbies and interests just as well as the rich. This sentiment is disgusting and you should be ashamed. > You get paid 3x your wife because Americans care about what you produce, and they don't care about what she produces. Trust me, I have worked jobs where I have been paid very, very well where nobody has cared about what I produced except the couple of people who were paying me.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - linkmotif 8y ago
      You won’t shame me. You can’t make me feel ashamed of my father, who got my family out of poverty and didn’t even know how to order a beer or a meal at a restaurant until he was 55 because that’s just not how we spent money. Your perspective is rooted in the heights of privilege and entitlement, wherein first world people can live cozy secure lives, entitled to leisure and “hobbies” on the backs of second and third worlders who facelessly supply us cheap goods that our rich should provision for us just because we live in a country that enslaves the world’s poor. That “hobbies” and “leisure” as a human right doesn’t give you pause is disturbing, because if you don’t earn your hobbies and leisure and expect them anyway, you’re a piece of work given what goes on in the world to make our leisure possible. Americans live in a Disney fairyland created by Ronald Reagan and the 1980s. Why should poor people in America be entitled to 50,000 USD when people who work and create the things these poor people say they absolutely need to consume make 5,000 USD. What haught, what arrogance. What willful ignorance. That’s what’s disgusting.
      - lghh 8y ago
        > You can’t make me feel ashamed of my father, who got my family out of poverty and didn’t even know how to order a beer or a meal at a restaurant until he was 55 because that’s just not how we spent money. I never asked you to feel ashamed for that. I'm asking that you don't require everyone go though the same struggles as revenge. Get this... I also think the people who are working to create the things that you are talking about should be able to have hobbies. I also think the people making the things that get consumed should be able to make enough to consume them. You are trying to turn my argument in to what you want it to be, not what it clearly is. You are saying that, because I think people should be able to have better lives, I am saying some people should not have better lives? That doesn't even make sense. Do better.
athenot 8y ago
> (1) Americans don’t actually care about education, as evidenced by the amount teachers make Americans care very much about education but the system we're in doesn't. Kids have no value in a market economy until they have purchase power (or influence on purchase power). In a highly inequal society that means very fancy private schools, for those who can pay. And neglected public schools for the rest. The outlook of a market economy is not 18 years, it's 1 year (and often quarter-to-quarter).
- magduf 8y ago
  >Americans care very much about education but the system we're in doesn't. This is demonstrably false. If Americans cared about education, they would demand their local governments do a better job of providing it. But they don't. Those governments pay teachers poorly, which doesn't attract quality people to the profession, and the taxpayers just complain about their taxes being too high.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    The ones who care about their kids' education enough to pay for it themselves—not just lobby to make others pay for it—and have the resources to do something about it tend to put their kids in private schools. That leaves only those who either lack sufficient resources to pay more or simply don't care. In any case, we actually spend quite a bit on education, despite arguably worse outcomes than some other countries that spend less. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to improve anything. The focus needs to be on spending the significant resources already allocated to education more effectively. The attempts to equalize outcomes regardless of the amount of effort students (and parents) put into their education certainly don't help. Assuming they get their way and everyone is assured of equal pay for equal "effort"—why bother studying if cashiering at a fast-food joint offers about the same quality-of-life as managing a successful company, or performing leading-edge research and development?
- linkmotif 8y ago
  Kids have massive purchasing power, a fact which was discovered by marketers in the 50s and cultivated extensively since then. Marketers back to then discovered they could actually market directly to kids, which wasn’t a thing before and something people take for granted now. In American households kids drive massive percentages of household spending, not just indirectly but directly as well. > Kids have no value in a market economy until they have purchase power Market economies are based entirely on investment. Market economies value investment and therefore kids. If people aren’t investing in kids, it’s because of market economy? as a matter of fact Americans invest tons of money in early childhood education and their children at an early age. It’s an American obsession. The problem is that outcomes have little to do with dollars invested. American culture at this point has devolved into pseudo fascist corporation and leisure identity worship, so people don’t even know what education is. Being a “geek” in America now means you watch tv and play video games. Buying your kid a tablet and plopping then down with some STEM edutainment software isn’t education. It’s just unfortunate, miguided ignorance, and we get what we pay for.

shanusmagnus 8y ago

It's worth asking why your wife doesn't switch to your job, to make 3x the salary. Either a) she couldn't do it, in which case by extension it boils down to supply and demand, or b) she doesn't want to do it, because she gets a whole bunch of joy from the job which is invisibly priced into compensation (and which indirectly goes back to supply and demand.) I don't see the discrepancy as any kind of market failure.

adamsea 8y ago
> "she gets a whole bunch of joy from the job which is invisibly priced into compensation" This is a pretty naive statement.
- ummonk 8y ago
  How so? Many people (women even moreso than men in my experience) prioritize fulfilling work over higher paying work. This is observable in, for example, people pursuing careers in saturated industries like journalism, art, or acting, as well as going for "more meaningful" startup jobs instead of FANG jobs. I personally switched from rocket science to tech and then to a FANG so I could get increased compensation and have a chance of catching up to Bay Area housing prices. My compensation increased 3x in the process. Most of my peers wouldn't do that.
- metalchianti 8y ago
  Could you elaborate? If not (b) then it seems she would certainly fall into (a).
athenot 8y ago
> I don't see the discrepancy as any kind of market failure. What his story underlines is that teaching young human beings about navigating life is rewarded 3x less than churing out code that fits some business objective. The market doesn't care about people, it cares about profit. In that system, human life is only important to the degree that it helps market dynamics.
- 8y ago

abapologist 8y ago

Pay isn’t connected to effort of labor though.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
It also isn't connected to the value the job brings to society, or even to the long-term impact on the market economy.
- abapologist 8y ago
  This may be true as well. One thing money has going for it, versus impact on society, is that we can measure it. Might not be a great metric, but we as a society have failed to invent and value a better one.

torbjorn 8y ago

The teachers' situation is more demoralizing for sure. Capitalism would explain the difference between a tech worker's pay and a teacher's pay as based on skill and worker scarcity, not on who works the hardest.

malvosenior 8y ago

It's probably >3x more difficult to find someone with your skills to employ. It may be easy to you but to someone who doesn't know how to program, your work is unimaginably difficult.

avgDev 8y ago
I would also argue that writing code is a grind. I would enjoy writing code maybe 2-4 hours a day tops but when you want to get something done and code for 7 hours straight it is really tough to do. Learning new concepts all the time, emotional waves, errors that can impact companies on a large scale. Programming is really difficult and requires constant engagement in the industry.
- sigi45 8y ago
  Yes its work. But you know what is also work? Cleaning shit from others the whole day. I also can imagine selling stuff is draining or catering for others. I'm valuated more because i'm more needed and a company can make more money with me than without me. This still doesn't make it fair.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > This still doesn't make it fair. You're not taking into account the thousands of hours people have to put in to learning how to program. That's real work and sacrifice. It's not unfair that that investment pays off.
    - sigi45 8y ago
      But those people got the chance to do it. They got the lucky direction. They got the smarts, the parents who read to them, etc.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        Maybe, maybe not (I know I didn't have all of those things). It's undeniable they had to work hard to become good programmers though.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago

It's not about how hard you work. It's about how many people can do what you do. Don't sell yourself short, in tech you have skills that only a small percentage of the population are capable of doing. We might all say "Programming is easy" or "I really only work half the day" but for many people Programming is seen as witchcraft, and for many what would take a skilled developer an hour would take a whole day (or worse, they might just do the task manually). If your not satisfied with programming you can of course go into teaching, if that's what you think is truly fulfilling.

sigi45 8y ago
I think very similiar to ighhh. It doesn't make it fair that in theory 'everyone' could get into it or that it takes probably much longer for someone to do my job than the other way around (like yes i think i would be able to sell things). I don't know how we should incentive instead but it doesn't make it fair.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  You're just basing your view of what's fair on time spent working/physical labor. If you base your view of what's fair on skillsets, and what one person can do, and what one person can not, it makes more sense.