3 ms·
// The US does this in every instance where passion is involved I don't think there's a conspiracy. High performers in "passion" fields are sought after and ma
by xyzelement 4y ago
// The US does this in every instance where passion is involved
I don't think there's a conspiracy. High performers in "passion" fields are sought after and make bank (Tom Cruise vs starving actor, eg)
The problem is the oversupply of middling talent. If I needed a random average actor for something, there are thousands of them fighting for the job, so it doesn't pay much. If I need Tom Cruise I am going to pay a lot.
The passion lense is useless. Doctors are passionate. Engineers are passionate.
The difference is the bar to entry. Getting into and graduating med school is very hard. Very few people, relatively, have an MD so they are in demand. And failure is clean - if you didn't make it to medschool, you go do something else. You don't spend the rest of your life as an "aspiring physician"
There's no such filter for acting etc so lots of people flood the field, don't get a natural weed-out and thus spend the rest of their life competing with each other for mediocre opportunities. And we just don't have a shortage of actors.
The US system is provides a practical signal. If you aren't making it on your "passion field", at some point the money signals that you can contribute better to society elsewhere.
- bumby 4y agoI think there's some validity to this perspective, but it oversimplifies the systemic effects. MDs, for example, are artificially constrained by the AMA in the number of doctors needed by society. It's been likened to a cartel that acts to keep doctor pay high by artificially limiting supply. Let the "bar to entry" be constrained by merit, not by a cabal. Likewise, most engineers aren't capital "E" engineers in the legal sense. Most work under an exemption to be able to call themselves engineers. Most don't even realize it - they are, to a certain extent, 'aspiring' engineers (legally, at least).