6 ms·

Oh, so you can centrally plan all of our wages and prices? I suggest you look back and see how well this concept has historically worked out. EDIT: Allow me to

Oh, so you can centrally plan all of our wages and prices? I suggest you look back and see how well this concept has historically worked out. EDIT: Allow me to illustrate the absurdity of your comment: I want to pay Mark Cuban $500/hr to do consulting for me. Why is he billing me at $25,000/hr, if he even responds? This is garbage. No human should be paid that much.

gamblor956 13y ago
I don't think you understand what you're saying. It's not about centralized salaries or any other such nonsense. It's a simple matter of market forces at work. To touch upon your example: If you want Mark Cuban to do consulting work for you, you pay him what he wants to be paid to do that work. He wants $25,000/hour. If you don't want to pay the rate--you don't have to and he doesn't have to do any work for you. If you just want consulting work done for $500/hour, you could probably hire anyone--but you're not getting Mark Cuban. You're also not going to get anywhere close to the best consultants--they usually charge $1000/hour or more. They can get away with this because the markets, or specifically, other people looking for consultants, are willing to pay them that much for their time. Consequently, they have a choice--$500/hour consulting for you, or $1000+/hour working for others. Most likely, they'll choose to work for the higher rate unless they have a compelling non-financial reason to work for the lower rate. You may not think they deserve that much (and on an equitable basis, they probably don't), but such concerns are not relevant to determining what the market rates for their services are.
- icelancer 13y ago
  Is this supposed to be in response to the other guy who thinks $1,000/hr is too much? I understand remedial economics.
EGreg 13y ago
In your example, you especially want Mark Cuban and only Mark Cuban. He is saying that, at today's market rates, no person needs $1000 an hour to live on anywhere. Those that make that much are only making it because, for one reason or another, they are providing a very scarce or indispensable service. In this case the scarcity may be artificial.

gamblor956 13y ago

I don't think you understand what you're saying. It's not about centralized salaries or any other such nonsense. It's a simple matter of market forces at work. To touch upon your example: If you want Mark Cuban to do consulting work for you, you pay him what he wants to be paid to do that work. He wants $25,000/hour. If you don't want to pay the rate--you don't have to and he doesn't have to do any work for you. If you just want consulting work done for $500/hour, you could probably hire anyone--but you're not getting Mark Cuban. You're also not going to get anywhere close to the best consultants--they usually charge $1000/hour or more. They can get away with this because the markets, or specifically, other people looking for consultants, are willing to pay them that much for their time. Consequently, they have a choice--$500/hour consulting for you, or $1000+/hour working for others. Most likely, they'll choose to work for the higher rate unless they have a compelling non-financial reason to work for the lower rate. You may not think they deserve that much (and on an equitable basis, they probably don't), but such concerns are not relevant to determining what the market rates for their services are.

icelancer 13y ago
Is this supposed to be in response to the other guy who thinks $1,000/hr is too much? I understand remedial economics.

EGreg 13y ago

In your example, you especially want Mark Cuban and only Mark Cuban. He is saying that, at today's market rates, no person needs $1000 an hour to live on anywhere. Those that make that much are only making it because, for one reason or another, they are providing a very scarce or indispensable service. In this case the scarcity may be artificial.