6 ms·

Quite right about doctors and lawyers. In fact I was going to mention their professional organizations as an example. Requiring certifications, all for the publ

by thras 18y ago

Quite right about doctors and lawyers. In fact I was going to mention their professional organizations as an example. Requiring certifications, all for the public good of course, is one of the best ways to inflate wages.

kragen 18y ago
Johnnie Cochrane and celebrity plastic surgeons don't earn 30× as much as other doctors and lawyers because their compensation is set by a guild; if anything, guilds tend to assign scale and frown on those who charge more (and prosecute those who charge less). They earn 30× as much because people are willing to pay 30× as much for their services.
- Retric 18y ago
  I think the relative value they charge relates to what other people are charging. A hair dresser might charge 50x what other hairdressers charge, but in the back of peoples heads they compare the price to other hair dressers and not doctors. If your 10x as good you can charge 5 - 50x as much, but not 50,000x as much without a lot of brand advertising.
  - kragen 18y ago
    "Without a lot of brand advertising"? How many ads do you think Tom Cruise buys to promote his personal "brand"? I think the relevant thing is the reputation, not the advertising that might or might not create a better reputation. The reputation is why Tom Cruise makes 50 000× as much as the actor in the community-theater play down the street from you. (Assuming they're even getting paid.) When a producer is negotiating a contract with Tom Cruise, I don't think it enters his mind how much unknown actors in community theater make. I think he's thinking about how many people bought tickets to see the last Tom Cruise movie and his estimate of how many of them went because of Tom Cruise. I don't know enough about hairdressers to know whether the same thing applies to them. It does apply to fashion designers, and in some cases it seems to apply to programmers.
    - Retric 18y ago
      After sarah paulin chose her glasses that brand become unusually popular. I don't think the idea it was "Free" advertising really matters the effect is the same. Tom Cruise has a long history of exposure which is part of why he is paid that much. But, you could also consider he the idea he is worth 50,000x as much because he increases the movies revenue and he helps the movie get financed. In most cases I suspect "brand" acts like a multiplyer so Apple's HDD might be worth 1.25 times as much as another just because of the reputation. IBM might be 30% better and have 2x the brand so they charge 2.6x what other consultant companies charge etc. Clearly major movies have great hairdressers but they don't get to charge 50,000x as much because a lower increase in value and a lower level of brand recognition. PS: This get's confusing when considering something like breitling watches where a lot of the value comes from the price tag and not the physical watch. When someone knows you spent 250,000 on your watch they know you have money even if they can't see your car / house etc.

by thras 18y ago

kragen 18y ago

Johnnie Cochrane and celebrity plastic surgeons don't earn 30× as much as other doctors and lawyers because their compensation is set by a guild; if anything, guilds tend to assign scale and frown on those who charge more (and prosecute those who charge less). They earn 30× as much because people are willing to pay 30× as much for their services.

Retric 18y ago
I think the relative value they charge relates to what other people are charging. A hair dresser might charge 50x what other hairdressers charge, but in the back of peoples heads they compare the price to other hair dressers and not doctors. If your 10x as good you can charge 5 - 50x as much, but not 50,000x as much without a lot of brand advertising.
- kragen 18y ago
  "Without a lot of brand advertising"? How many ads do you think Tom Cruise buys to promote his personal "brand"? I think the relevant thing is the reputation, not the advertising that might or might not create a better reputation. The reputation is why Tom Cruise makes 50 000× as much as the actor in the community-theater play down the street from you. (Assuming they're even getting paid.) When a producer is negotiating a contract with Tom Cruise, I don't think it enters his mind how much unknown actors in community theater make. I think he's thinking about how many people bought tickets to see the last Tom Cruise movie and his estimate of how many of them went because of Tom Cruise. I don't know enough about hairdressers to know whether the same thing applies to them. It does apply to fashion designers, and in some cases it seems to apply to programmers.
  - Retric 18y ago
    After sarah paulin chose her glasses that brand become unusually popular. I don't think the idea it was "Free" advertising really matters the effect is the same. Tom Cruise has a long history of exposure which is part of why he is paid that much. But, you could also consider he the idea he is worth 50,000x as much because he increases the movies revenue and he helps the movie get financed. In most cases I suspect "brand" acts like a multiplyer so Apple's HDD might be worth 1.25 times as much as another just because of the reputation. IBM might be 30% better and have 2x the brand so they charge 2.6x what other consultant companies charge etc. Clearly major movies have great hairdressers but they don't get to charge 50,000x as much because a lower increase in value and a lower level of brand recognition. PS: This get's confusing when considering something like breitling watches where a lot of the value comes from the price tag and not the physical watch. When someone knows you spent 250,000 on your watch they know you have money even if they can't see your car / house etc.