3 ms·
90% never lasts for long. Its called the law of attractive profits. The more attractive your profits are, the more competition you attract.
by Aslan93 3y ago
90% never lasts for long. Its called the law of attractive profits. The more attractive your profits are, the more competition you attract.
- danbruc 3y agoSure, that's the theory. In theory someone cleaning toilets should also earn more than software developers or CEOs. People doing badly paid unpleasant jobs should all learn to program or manage a company and then drive down the salaries until cleaning toilets pays a premium because it is unpleasant work no one wants to do.
- imgabe 3y agoNo they shouldn’t. There is a large supply of people capable of cleaning toilets. And a relatively smaller supply of people capable of writing software.
- danbruc 3y agoUnder idealized conditions they would all take some training and learn to program.
- imgabe 3y agoWhat’s stopping them? You can learn to program with free information from the Internet. How much more ideal does it need to be?
- danbruc 3y agoDo you think all the people cleaning toilets for little money prefer their job over sitting in a comfortable office and getting well paid? If not, then there have to be barriers. Here are some. You need time, you may need additional education before you can even start to tackle programming. You might have to move. You might just not be smart enough. You might not be an autodidact and need a teacher which might cost money. You need a computer for which you might not have the money.
- TylerE 3y agoNot being stuck behind a desk IS a major career motivator for many people. They often go into fields like forestry, hospitality, and, yes, janitorial. Don't knock the power of a job where you can 100% turn your brain off at work, and 100% turn work off at home, either.
- imgabe 3y agoMost people have computers. You don’t need to be in any particular place to learn to program as long as you have internet access. But yes, you might not be smart enough. Which was the point. The supply of people smart enough to program is smaller than the supply of people smart enough to clean toilets. Programming is a more complex and difficult skill than toilet cleaning, which is why it’s more highly compensated. So is being a CEO. Like these are clearly not equivalently difficult things, so why do you think they should be compensated equivalently?
- danbruc 3y agoAs I said, in theory. Maybe I should better have said in a naive theory, but it does not seem to uncommon that the argument is made that people will just find other job if their current job disappears which, at least to some extent, implies flexibility in what kind of jobs someone can do. Ignoring everything, I also think it would be natural that everyone has the same wage - if you work for an hour it costs you an hour of your lifetime, no matter what you do. You get a bonus for unpleasant, physically demanding, or dangerous work. Every deviation from that due to supply and demand seems generally undesirable. For unskilled labor the abundance of supply - everyone can do unskilled labor - is used to bring the wages down to the bare minimum, often in combination with those jobs being unpleasant work. On the other end a lack of supply allows workers to demand inflated salaries compared to their time investment taking money away from everyone consuming products and services they are involved in. And I am aware that we need some differential in wage levels to steer what kind of jobs people want to take and that some jobs need longer education and therefore should pay more to compensate for the time spend in education and whatnot. This is just what I think should be the ideal situation under completely idealized and unrealistic circumstances. Or phrased in another way, I think it would be good to make policies that try to make everyone earn the same amount as long as they do not compromise important signaling functions of wage differentials.
- kvetching 3y ago" In theory someone cleaning toilets should also earn more than software developers or CEOs." everyone wondering if you have a cogent point should read this first to realize you have no idea what you are talking about
- danbruc 3y agoAre you saying you prefer cleaning toilets over developing software, are you denying that the theory says that people will seek the best paying jobs or are you denying that supply and demand will regulate compensation? Keep in mind that I started my sentence with in theory, I am well aware that in reality there are all kinds of barriers that will prevent people from quickly retraining and seeking jobs where the payment is the highest, that was the whole point of my statement.