5 ms·

There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. I also find the idea of "basic economics" laughable given

There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. I also find the idea of "basic economics" laughable given how impossible economics is in the first place. I mean, yes, if you assume spherical cows...

luckylion 6y ago
> There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. It kinda is, isn't it? The fun, fulfilling job is one that everybody is happy to do. The boring, soul-devouring job is where you need to encourage people to do it by offering more money.
gnicholas 6y ago
> There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less It's called 'psychic income', and it is something that people will accept, to some extent, as a substitute for cash comp. This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more. There are a lot of people who enjoy teaching, and not a lot who enjoy garbage collecting. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_econstat_wp_50.pdf https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_econstat_wp_5...
- willcipriano 6y ago
  >This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more. Looks like the median pay for garbage collectors is $37,840[0] and for teachers it is $59,420[1] [0]https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537081.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537081.htm [1]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/mobile/kindergarten-and-elementary-school-teachers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/mobil...
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    Is there any required credentialing for for garbage collectors? Teachers need to have a bachelors degree and a teaching credential, in most cases.
    - learc83 6y ago
      That's true but the OP just destroyed the only supporting evidence you provided for your point. It might be that teacher's salaries would be below $37k if it didn't require credentialing, but that's not the case, so it's not evidence.
      - OrangeKnucles 6y ago
        The OP did not destroy the supporting evidence.
        learc83 6y ago
        How so? The only supporting evidence provided was garbage collectors make more than teachers. The OP posted a link showing that's not true.
        gnicholas 6y ago
        I never said that teachers should make less than garbage collectors because they enjoy psychic income. These two jobs are not generally substitutable in the eyes of potential employees, since they are so different. Sorry if I gave the impression that any job that enjoys psychic income would pay less than any other job — certainly this is not true. For example, college professors receive psychic income, but they make much more than garbage collectors. They make less than stock brokers, which is another career option available to people who can get PhDs, in general.
        learc83 6y ago
        >Sorry if I gave the impression that any job that enjoys psychic income would pay less than any other job — certainly this is not true. That's not the impression you gave. You gave the impression that garbage collectors make more than teachers. >This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more Teachers < other professions < garbage collectors I get now that you meant to say was Teachers < similar professions to teachers Garbage collectors > similar professions to garbage collectors I've heard many arguments that teacher make less than X profession, so the former wasn't an unreasonable interpretation given the phrasing. Knowing what you meant to say. I don't think garbage collector pay is good supporting evidence for psychic income. Garbage collector pays well because it is a physically unpleasant job. What's an example of a substitute job that is similarly physically unpleasant that pays less because people find it fulfilling?
leetcrew 6y ago
this seems like basic common sense. if you have two job offers for the same salary, but one sounds really fun and the other sounds really boring, wouldn't you pick the fun one? but at the same time unless you're already pretty wealthy, there's probably a dollar amount that would make you pick the boring one instead. iterate this choice over enough people, and the "fun factor" depresses wages.
- thanatropism 6y ago
  Good economics is basically common sense on manifolds.
imtringued 6y ago
>There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. Basic supply and demand. Fun jobs mean more people apply to the job. The employer can pick the cheapest employees. Employees can get an edge over their peers by lowering their salary expectations because they value the job more than the money. I honestly don't even think that this is a bad trade off. There are lots of jobs where you get access to equipment that you could never afford even if you had a higher salary. Think of working at a company like SpaceX or doing research at a university.
dragonwriter 6y ago
Cet. par., if doing a job involves less disutility for the worker, people will demand less pay to compensate, since pay demands will be at the breakeven net utility point. Basic economics.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  Boss, I counted up my utils for the month, and it looks like I'm enjoying this new project. I have handily computed for you an appropriate rate at which to cut my pay. Basic economics demands it be so.

luckylion 6y ago

> There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. It kinda is, isn't it? The fun, fulfilling job is one that everybody is happy to do. The boring, soul-devouring job is where you need to encourage people to do it by offering more money.

gnicholas 6y ago

> There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less It's called 'psychic income', and it is something that people will accept, to some extent, as a substitute for cash comp. This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more. There are a lot of people who enjoy teaching, and not a lot who enjoy garbage collecting. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_econstat_wp_50.pdf https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_econstat_wp_5...

willcipriano 6y ago
>This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more. Looks like the median pay for garbage collectors is $37,840[0] and for teachers it is $59,420[1] [0]https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537081.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537081.htm [1]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/mobile/kindergarten-and-elementary-school-teachers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/mobil...
- gnicholas 6y ago
  Is there any required credentialing for for garbage collectors? Teachers need to have a bachelors degree and a teaching credential, in most cases.
  - learc83 6y ago
    That's true but the OP just destroyed the only supporting evidence you provided for your point. It might be that teacher's salaries would be below $37k if it didn't require credentialing, but that's not the case, so it's not evidence.
    - OrangeKnucles 6y ago
      The OP did not destroy the supporting evidence.
      - learc83 6y ago
        How so? The only supporting evidence provided was garbage collectors make more than teachers. The OP posted a link showing that's not true.
        gnicholas 6y ago
        I never said that teachers should make less than garbage collectors because they enjoy psychic income. These two jobs are not generally substitutable in the eyes of potential employees, since they are so different. Sorry if I gave the impression that any job that enjoys psychic income would pay less than any other job — certainly this is not true. For example, college professors receive psychic income, but they make much more than garbage collectors. They make less than stock brokers, which is another career option available to people who can get PhDs, in general.
        learc83 6y ago
        >Sorry if I gave the impression that any job that enjoys psychic income would pay less than any other job — certainly this is not true. That's not the impression you gave. You gave the impression that garbage collectors make more than teachers. >This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more Teachers < other professions < garbage collectors I get now that you meant to say was Teachers < similar professions to teachers Garbage collectors > similar professions to garbage collectors I've heard many arguments that teacher make less than X profession, so the former wasn't an unreasonable interpretation given the phrasing. Knowing what you meant to say. I don't think garbage collector pay is good supporting evidence for psychic income. Garbage collector pays well because it is a physically unpleasant job. What's an example of a substitute job that is similarly physically unpleasant that pays less because people find it fulfilling?

leetcrew 6y ago

this seems like basic common sense. if you have two job offers for the same salary, but one sounds really fun and the other sounds really boring, wouldn't you pick the fun one? but at the same time unless you're already pretty wealthy, there's probably a dollar amount that would make you pick the boring one instead. iterate this choice over enough people, and the "fun factor" depresses wages.

thanatropism 6y ago
Good economics is basically common sense on manifolds.

imtringued 6y ago

>There is nothing inherent in "basic economics" that postulates that fulfilling or fun jobs pay less. Basic supply and demand. Fun jobs mean more people apply to the job. The employer can pick the cheapest employees. Employees can get an edge over their peers by lowering their salary expectations because they value the job more than the money. I honestly don't even think that this is a bad trade off. There are lots of jobs where you get access to equipment that you could never afford even if you had a higher salary. Think of working at a company like SpaceX or doing research at a university.

dragonwriter 6y ago

Cet. par., if doing a job involves less disutility for the worker, people will demand less pay to compensate, since pay demands will be at the breakeven net utility point. Basic economics.

cool_dude85 6y ago
Boss, I counted up my utils for the month, and it looks like I'm enjoying this new project. I have handily computed for you an appropriate rate at which to cut my pay. Basic economics demands it be so.