4 ms·

I guess the article is asking for LA to lower the pay. And maybe that's correct. However some of the people in these jobs have saved lives. So maybe they are ov

I guess the article is asking for LA to lower the pay. And maybe that's correct. However some of the people in these jobs have saved lives. So maybe they are overpaying by $8M per year... but if they cut that back, should the talent saving maybe 10 or 15 people decide to quit... would that be worth it? Each person that is saved is arguably worth millions to their family (we're just talking money here not love etc...) and millions to the GDP over their lost lifetime (we're talking about people that can afford to live in LA).

realo 6y ago
Yes but... Where is the line drawn? 1M$ a year for each lifeguard? 2 M$ a year? 10 M$ a year? When is the pay for a life-saving job « adequate »?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
syspec 6y ago
Yes, but it's not exactly a skill which is marketable otherwise, so most of those people (the top earners making over 200k) will do the same work for half the pay because there is no other market for thier skills
bisRepetita 6y ago
Get ready for a major pay increase for nurses then. There are a lot of them. Not against it, btw. If we cannot pay everyone $300K with our taxes, who should get it first?
- rhacker 6y ago
  Same here, would not be against that.
ggggtez 6y ago
That's silly. If we want to look at it in a purely utilitarian view, you could spend $8M per year and spend that on doctors and nurses, or EMT. Swimming is a calculated risk. While I appreciate what life guards do, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are more important that other jobs that save lives. You can avoid drowning by simply choosing not to go swimming. If we really want to base things on cost-benefit analysis, someone with some actuary knowledge could probably make a more efficient investment here.
- rhacker 6y ago
  > You can avoid drowning by simply choosing not to go swimming. That's a personal decision, not a community one. At the community level that would be equivalent to banning visiting the beach. But yes, the rest of your comment definitely applies. However as of right now, LA's government does not believe this to be silly.
  - ggggtez 6y ago
    The community has to choose where to spend money. So, they want a lifeguard because swimming makes life more enjoyable to live. That's fine. But saying something like "life is priceless" or worth millions or whatever, that's silly. That's not how we decide to pay for any other dangerous job. I don't know what a reasonable pay for a lifeguard is, but Glass door seems to say that the market rate is about 20-40k. This job may be risky, and it has benefits to society, but so do a lot of other jobs.

realo 6y ago

Yes but... Where is the line drawn? 1M$ a year for each lifeguard? 2 M$ a year? 10 M$ a year? When is the pay for a life-saving job « adequate »?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

syspec 6y ago

Yes, but it's not exactly a skill which is marketable otherwise, so most of those people (the top earners making over 200k) will do the same work for half the pay because there is no other market for thier skills

bisRepetita 6y ago

Get ready for a major pay increase for nurses then. There are a lot of them. Not against it, btw. If we cannot pay everyone $300K with our taxes, who should get it first?

rhacker 6y ago
Same here, would not be against that.

ggggtez 6y ago

That's silly. If we want to look at it in a purely utilitarian view, you could spend $8M per year and spend that on doctors and nurses, or EMT. Swimming is a calculated risk. While I appreciate what life guards do, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are more important that other jobs that save lives. You can avoid drowning by simply choosing not to go swimming. If we really want to base things on cost-benefit analysis, someone with some actuary knowledge could probably make a more efficient investment here.

rhacker 6y ago
> You can avoid drowning by simply choosing not to go swimming. That's a personal decision, not a community one. At the community level that would be equivalent to banning visiting the beach. But yes, the rest of your comment definitely applies. However as of right now, LA's government does not believe this to be silly.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  The community has to choose where to spend money. So, they want a lifeguard because swimming makes life more enjoyable to live. That's fine. But saying something like "life is priceless" or worth millions or whatever, that's silly. That's not how we decide to pay for any other dangerous job. I don't know what a reasonable pay for a lifeguard is, but Glass door seems to say that the market rate is about 20-40k. This job may be risky, and it has benefits to society, but so do a lot of other jobs.