3 ms·

> Plus, there's an obvious class component. The further removed you are from working with your hands, the higher value you're perceived to have. I like this po

by zzzeek 15y ago

> Plus, there's an obvious class component. The further removed you are from working with your hands, the higher value you're perceived to have. I like this point a lot, and it makes sense, but then I thought, how come it doesn't apply to athletes ?

mseebach 15y ago
Because it doesn't actually have anything to do with "working with your hands". Craftsmen are probably a better example - a talented craftsman, like an athlete, though he's working with his body, can command soaring rates. The classical worker, the kind I believe the GP meant to refer to, is a commodity. It's the kind of workers it might make sense to hire as day labourers and, conversely, for whom collective bargaining is beneficial. There has been a tendency for some businesses to treat programmers as this kind of workers, often leading to failed off-shoring efforts.
sector 15y ago
It's not a class issue. A more accurate appraisal would be that one is paid highest for strategic work, next highest for tactical, and the least for operational work. If you're great at operational work, but are no good with tactics or strategy, you won't ever get a huge salary, in the office or in sports. After all, look at pro-sports salaries and you'll see that the highest paid players are the ones who are put in situations where they have the ability to make potentially critical decisions, and who have a history of being relatively good with those calls.
drcube 15y ago
It did, for a hundred years. Professional athletes (outside of a few rare "rock stars" like Babe Ruth) often had to get second jobs in the off season up until the 1970s. If they wanted to continue playing sports professionally, they were at the whim of their team's owner, who could and did forbid them from playing for any other team. Read up on the Reserve clause and Curt Flood for more info about how this all changed starting with Major League Baseball in the 1970s.

by zzzeek 15y ago

mseebach 15y ago

Because it doesn't actually have anything to do with "working with your hands". Craftsmen are probably a better example - a talented craftsman, like an athlete, though he's working with his body, can command soaring rates. The classical worker, the kind I believe the GP meant to refer to, is a commodity. It's the kind of workers it might make sense to hire as day labourers and, conversely, for whom collective bargaining is beneficial. There has been a tendency for some businesses to treat programmers as this kind of workers, often leading to failed off-shoring efforts.

sector 15y ago

It's not a class issue. A more accurate appraisal would be that one is paid highest for strategic work, next highest for tactical, and the least for operational work. If you're great at operational work, but are no good with tactics or strategy, you won't ever get a huge salary, in the office or in sports. After all, look at pro-sports salaries and you'll see that the highest paid players are the ones who are put in situations where they have the ability to make potentially critical decisions, and who have a history of being relatively good with those calls.

drcube 15y ago

It did, for a hundred years. Professional athletes (outside of a few rare "rock stars" like Babe Ruth) often had to get second jobs in the off season up until the 1970s. If they wanted to continue playing sports professionally, they were at the whim of their team's owner, who could and did forbid them from playing for any other team. Read up on the Reserve clause and Curt Flood for more info about how this all changed starting with Major League Baseball in the 1970s.