4 ms·

> It's a matter of fairness. Riskier jobs should have higher salaries. Interesting argument which I doubt anyone here agrees with. After all, that would mean b

> It's a matter of fairness. Riskier jobs should have higher salaries. Interesting argument which I doubt anyone here agrees with. After all, that would mean builders, miners, street sweepers and the like would be paid the highest, midwives somewhere in the middle and us right at the bottom.

KON_Air 7y ago
Absolutely, especially artists should pay their employers for the exposure they get.
pgsandstrom 7y ago
I dont see it as her claiming that riskier jobs always should be paid more than safer jobs. Only that the risk factor should have a larger impact on the salary.
viraptor 7y ago
Not only by risk, but by something like risk*skill, definitely. I'm not sure why street sweepers would be risky. But the rest, sure. Miners are already paid quite a lot in many places.
golergka 7y ago
The very word "should" implies that there should be some one valid opinion or source of truth on that matter. I'd rather take decentralized market-based approach where the prices of it is decided by all the small decisions of a lot of ordinary people rather than try and debate it in attempt to come to some agreement with anyone.
dmichulke 7y ago
"Risky" is underdefined: - who takes the risk? (employer vs employee vs employer's clients vs state vs insurance) - how transitive is the risk? (is A on the hook for B's risk as well?) Only two dimensions but it's already a mess to think it through.
gravelc 7y ago
Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse. I'm a scientist and earn roughly the same as a midwife in Australia. Having said that, my first child nearly died during birth, and having a very good midwife who knew the signs, made all the right decisions, got the emergency doctors in at the right time - that service was utterly invaluable. I'm all for the average midwife being paid somewhat more than me if it leads to more of these outcomes.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rich-tea 7y ago
  > Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club or the equivalent in your country to get a glimpse of the rest of society.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club I've worked as bar staff in one. Talking about a tribal bubbles, that place was insane. I have also worked in offices, factories and fields. Currently doing geeky stuff with nightclubs for a pittance and massively preferring it when compared to some of the vastly more high paid work I have done. There is groupthink on here, but I would say that HN perhaps isn't as cookie-cutter as you may suppose.
    - rich-tea 7y ago
      What's your point? I didn't say anything about what HN is, I just said that it is in no way a "diverse" group of people. Honestly can't see how anyone could think this is diverse.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
avar 7y ago
Even if you concede that point we're left with the question of why midwifery is especially risky in Ethiopia. Do they not have access to basis safety equipment? Paying a government-funded profession based on risk creates perverse incentives. You'd have midwives campaigning against introducing surgical gloves because they've got a family to feed and don't want to lose the risk pay.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  > Paying a government-funded profession based on risk creates perverse incentives This is horrendous and depressingly, probably true. It's important to see the incentive structure from both sides and to try and consider the unintended consequences of seemly good actions. That doesn't detract from the position that midwives probably deserve higher pay. Tragically, the system we live in is that those that help increase capital get more pay, while those that actually do the meaningful foundational work (help bringing people to life, saving lives, teaching, all the things required to actually have a workforce that can generate capital) don't get paid enough.
claudiawerner 7y ago
Train drivers tend to be paid very highly, and I've heard the reason for that is a kind of risk. If something goes wrong (which it really can do catastrophically) then they shoulder the risk. To look at it from the other side, don't apologists for capital say that the boss should collect profit (and in perpetuity too) because of the "risk" she took to start the company?
- lnsru 7y ago
  Train drivers have sometimes very short careers and can’t work anymore: https://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/rail-suicide-a-train-driver-struggles-with-lives-taken-a-1191500.html https://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/rail-suicide-a-...
- kabouseng 7y ago
  I don't think train drivers earns high pay because of risk, but rather it takes a long time to properly train train drivers (especially freight trains), there is scarcity of skill, and the potential damages of a train crash warrants paying more for better skilled drivers to minimize the chance. The risk the driver takes on doesn't really get factored in. Edit spelling.
pif 7y ago
> Interesting argument which I doubt anyone here agrees with. Quite the contrary, I think everybody agrees that risk is one important factor in salary expectations. But workforce availability is another important factor! If more people are available to work on scaffoldings rather than in a cosy office, well, scaffoldings will pay less! And yes, I do understand that working in a office usually requires some training that not eveybody has the priviledge to afford: I'm just stating the facts, but I don't want to imply that this situation is fair.
Tomminn 7y ago
I get that you're tackling this specific argument, but it's important to remember the context too. She makes between $56 and $85 dollars a month. Working 12 months a year, for 50 years, she'll make a total of around $42,000 dollars. It's hard to argue that is remotely fair.
ken 7y ago
Back when I worked in an office, I saw more than one coworker get carted off (heart attack) from sitting at a desk all day. These days I move around a lot and I regularly have to put on a harness for working at height, and I've never seen or heard of anyone actually falling into their pro, much less getting hurt from a fall. Heart disease is still the #1 killer in America, by a fair margin, and has been for many decades. Is my new job "riskier"? I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the statement, but only because I'm no longer convinced that capitalism is a viable system for allocating resources. In fact, I think this is a great argument against it. Dangerous jobs often do pay more, so people who need money will take these jobs -- even though the people who are desperate for a good paycheck are also often the least able to deal with the consequences of this risk. Financial desperation makes people ignore the long term, and people simply aren't good at understanding very-low-probability events. Dangerous jobs mean people will get hurt, which further limits their earning potential, and limits economic mobility. It's a terrible feedback loop. But then, salaries have never made much sense to me. I'm not able to look at two friends and say "Yeah, X makes 10 times as much money as Y, and deserves it". Most of the people I know doing the most worthwhile things for society are also those earning the least money.

KON_Air 7y ago

Absolutely, especially artists should pay their employers for the exposure they get.

pgsandstrom 7y ago

I dont see it as her claiming that riskier jobs always should be paid more than safer jobs. Only that the risk factor should have a larger impact on the salary.

viraptor 7y ago

Not only by risk, but by something like risk*skill, definitely. I'm not sure why street sweepers would be risky. But the rest, sure. Miners are already paid quite a lot in many places.

golergka 7y ago

The very word "should" implies that there should be some one valid opinion or source of truth on that matter. I'd rather take decentralized market-based approach where the prices of it is decided by all the small decisions of a lot of ordinary people rather than try and debate it in attempt to come to some agreement with anyone.

dmichulke 7y ago

"Risky" is underdefined: - who takes the risk? (employer vs employee vs employer's clients vs state vs insurance) - how transitive is the risk? (is A on the hook for B's risk as well?) Only two dimensions but it's already a mess to think it through.

gravelc 7y ago

Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse. I'm a scientist and earn roughly the same as a midwife in Australia. Having said that, my first child nearly died during birth, and having a very good midwife who knew the signs, made all the right decisions, got the emergency doctors in at the right time - that service was utterly invaluable. I'm all for the average midwife being paid somewhat more than me if it leads to more of these outcomes.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rich-tea 7y ago
> Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club or the equivalent in your country to get a glimpse of the rest of society.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club I've worked as bar staff in one. Talking about a tribal bubbles, that place was insane. I have also worked in offices, factories and fields. Currently doing geeky stuff with nightclubs for a pittance and massively preferring it when compared to some of the vastly more high paid work I have done. There is groupthink on here, but I would say that HN perhaps isn't as cookie-cutter as you may suppose.
  - rich-tea 7y ago
    What's your point? I didn't say anything about what HN is, I just said that it is in no way a "diverse" group of people. Honestly can't see how anyone could think this is diverse.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago

avar 7y ago

Even if you concede that point we're left with the question of why midwifery is especially risky in Ethiopia. Do they not have access to basis safety equipment? Paying a government-funded profession based on risk creates perverse incentives. You'd have midwives campaigning against introducing surgical gloves because they've got a family to feed and don't want to lose the risk pay.

oarsinsync 7y ago
> Paying a government-funded profession based on risk creates perverse incentives This is horrendous and depressingly, probably true. It's important to see the incentive structure from both sides and to try and consider the unintended consequences of seemly good actions. That doesn't detract from the position that midwives probably deserve higher pay. Tragically, the system we live in is that those that help increase capital get more pay, while those that actually do the meaningful foundational work (help bringing people to life, saving lives, teaching, all the things required to actually have a workforce that can generate capital) don't get paid enough.

claudiawerner 7y ago

Train drivers tend to be paid very highly, and I've heard the reason for that is a kind of risk. If something goes wrong (which it really can do catastrophically) then they shoulder the risk. To look at it from the other side, don't apologists for capital say that the boss should collect profit (and in perpetuity too) because of the "risk" she took to start the company?

lnsru 7y ago
Train drivers have sometimes very short careers and can’t work anymore: https://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/rail-suicide-a-train-driver-struggles-with-lives-taken-a-1191500.html https://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/rail-suicide-a-...
kabouseng 7y ago
I don't think train drivers earns high pay because of risk, but rather it takes a long time to properly train train drivers (especially freight trains), there is scarcity of skill, and the potential damages of a train crash warrants paying more for better skilled drivers to minimize the chance. The risk the driver takes on doesn't really get factored in. Edit spelling.

pif 7y ago

> Interesting argument which I doubt anyone here agrees with. Quite the contrary, I think everybody agrees that risk is one important factor in salary expectations. But workforce availability is another important factor! If more people are available to work on scaffoldings rather than in a cosy office, well, scaffoldings will pay less! And yes, I do understand that working in a office usually requires some training that not eveybody has the priviledge to afford: I'm just stating the facts, but I don't want to imply that this situation is fair.

Tomminn 7y ago

I get that you're tackling this specific argument, but it's important to remember the context too. She makes between $56 and $85 dollars a month. Working 12 months a year, for 50 years, she'll make a total of around $42,000 dollars. It's hard to argue that is remotely fair.

ken 7y ago

Back when I worked in an office, I saw more than one coworker get carted off (heart attack) from sitting at a desk all day. These days I move around a lot and I regularly have to put on a harness for working at height, and I've never seen or heard of anyone actually falling into their pro, much less getting hurt from a fall. Heart disease is still the #1 killer in America, by a fair margin, and has been for many decades. Is my new job "riskier"? I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the statement, but only because I'm no longer convinced that capitalism is a viable system for allocating resources. In fact, I think this is a great argument against it. Dangerous jobs often do pay more, so people who need money will take these jobs -- even though the people who are desperate for a good paycheck are also often the least able to deal with the consequences of this risk. Financial desperation makes people ignore the long term, and people simply aren't good at understanding very-low-probability events. Dangerous jobs mean people will get hurt, which further limits their earning potential, and limits economic mobility. It's a terrible feedback loop. But then, salaries have never made much sense to me. I'm not able to look at two friends and say "Yeah, X makes 10 times as much money as Y, and deserves it". Most of the people I know doing the most worthwhile things for society are also those earning the least money.