3 ms·

Not saying I like the situation, nor that that's how things should be. Just that without seeing a string of quits, generally organizations (private or public)

Not saying I like the situation, nor that that's how things should be. Just that without seeing a string of quits, generally organizations (private or public) won't fix their salary problems. (The one other related signal is hires, or lack thereof, but it's far weaker.) If I'm wrong about that, I'd be curious to hear the theory.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Well, I agree with you that a string of quits would be a powerful signal, perhaps powerful enough to change things. I was just trying to provide questions individual doctors face that are somewhat unique to the medical profession. I definitely do not like the current situation.
- downerending 7y ago
  It's a bit more than academic for me personally. I'm not in that profession, but am doing a job most would say is very important from a societal perspective. I'm also paid way under market, and I'd like my employer to fix that. Realistically, though, that's not going to happen short of me quitting. I haven't so far, though I may yet. So, what's my employer to make of that? I might not be happy, but I'm still here. From a capitalist perspective, I'm being paid enough to hold me in position. So arguably my employer is getting my wage "just right", in that I'm close to not taking it, but not actually leaving. Kudos to them. This does cause a lot of secondary problems, but most of those are relatively invisible to those making these decisions. I don't have any good answers to this, but it does mean that many of the best minds of our generation end up working on elaborate advertising platforms and sometimes-dubious finance/trading applications.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > It's a bit more than academic for me personally. I understand. It was academic to me until one of my close family members became a doctor. I have no good answers here either. What you say is correct: from a capitalist perspective, the pay is just right. But it doesn't feel right, relative to everything else, and the result is that wages are roughly inversely correlated with actual utility a job has for the society. This situation seriously sucks. I also have a feeling this is related to a more general problem: using prices to allocate scarce goods is an efficient mechanism. Those who care more are willing to pay more for access to a good/service. This works great when those prices are low relative to everyone's budget. It becomes an ongoing humanitarian disaster when you get people priced out of access to food, water, shelter or medical care - especially if the reason you're being priced out is because wealthier people who care a little will still pay more than you can when your life depends on it. It's like there's a "divided by all your wealth" factor missing on the market, like we're operating in absolutes where we should be using fractions. Anyway, I hate that too.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Well, I agree with you that a string of quits would be a powerful signal, perhaps powerful enough to change things. I was just trying to provide questions individual doctors face that are somewhat unique to the medical profession. I definitely do not like the current situation.

downerending 7y ago
It's a bit more than academic for me personally. I'm not in that profession, but am doing a job most would say is very important from a societal perspective. I'm also paid way under market, and I'd like my employer to fix that. Realistically, though, that's not going to happen short of me quitting. I haven't so far, though I may yet. So, what's my employer to make of that? I might not be happy, but I'm still here. From a capitalist perspective, I'm being paid enough to hold me in position. So arguably my employer is getting my wage "just right", in that I'm close to not taking it, but not actually leaving. Kudos to them. This does cause a lot of secondary problems, but most of those are relatively invisible to those making these decisions. I don't have any good answers to this, but it does mean that many of the best minds of our generation end up working on elaborate advertising platforms and sometimes-dubious finance/trading applications.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > It's a bit more than academic for me personally. I understand. It was academic to me until one of my close family members became a doctor. I have no good answers here either. What you say is correct: from a capitalist perspective, the pay is just right. But it doesn't feel right, relative to everything else, and the result is that wages are roughly inversely correlated with actual utility a job has for the society. This situation seriously sucks. I also have a feeling this is related to a more general problem: using prices to allocate scarce goods is an efficient mechanism. Those who care more are willing to pay more for access to a good/service. This works great when those prices are low relative to everyone's budget. It becomes an ongoing humanitarian disaster when you get people priced out of access to food, water, shelter or medical care - especially if the reason you're being priced out is because wealthier people who care a little will still pay more than you can when your life depends on it. It's like there's a "divided by all your wealth" factor missing on the market, like we're operating in absolutes where we should be using fractions. Anyway, I hate that too.