3 ms·

Why should you take home a different income? I don't feel that the fact that I'm a computer scientist, which at the moment happens to pay well, ethically entitl

by mjn 13y ago

Why should you take home a different income? I don't feel that the fact that I'm a computer scientist, which at the moment happens to pay well, ethically entitles me to more resources than other people. If anything I feel a bit guilty taking home several times the income of the guy who's been showing up at 7am every morning to replace my roof; my job is a lot more pleasant and enjoyable, and yet that in itself isn't reward enough, but I get paid more too! One plausible answer could be, "because there's no workable way of making it otherwise". I could buy that, although then we're arguing pragmatics, not ethics.

cobrausn 13y ago
For better or for worse, the guy working hard to replace your roof is easier to replace than you are - this is because you have a skill set he doesn't that takes a lot of time and resources to develop. In addition, your work (likely) brings in more money to a company than his. As such, you get paid more. As an aside, have you ever noticed that (certified) plumbers and electricians make a lot of money? Same reasoning. I don't have a problem making more money now that I made myself valuable. I started off in retail, where you literally are one step away from being replaced by an automated kiosk.
- mjn 13y ago
  > I don't have a problem making more money now that I made myself valuable. That could be part of our differences in outlook. I don't feel I've really "made myself" valuable, I just have skills and interests that happened to be valuable. I've liked computers since I was a kid, and am reasonably adept with them. When I grew up, somewhat to my surprise, I found out people paid quite a bit of money for that kind of thing. It feels sort of like playing careers on easy-mode; even if I were to totally wash out into a low-end programming position, I could still easily make high 5 figures slinging web templates or Ruby or PHP or something. Other people who're harder-working and more talented than me make less, because they happened to be adept in the wrong thing (art or carpentry instead of coding, say). Were the era different, it could be the other way around, so I have a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" outlook: there are times when engineering was a poorly paid blue-collar occupation and skilled painters were highly rewarded. In that economy, I'd be poorer and some of my friends would be richer, through no change in our own skills...
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    That difference in early career opportunities could easily be a part of it (the difference in outlook). I'm just saying there is no need to feel guilty - the world and the economy are fairly malleable, and it doesn't value hard work as much as it values hard work at something that is in demand, so 'following your passion' may not be the best way to make money. As you have said, it has never really been much different, it's just what people demand has changed.
stretchwithme 13y ago
Technology is what produces wealth and those that master it make more. And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. It should be this way if you want people to solve hard problems. If you want everyone working at the drive thru, pay everyone the same. Then it will be other countries that master the future.
- mjn 13y ago
  > And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. If anything, I think this part is probably backwards. The market does not reward you on the basis of how difficult the technology you mastered was, but on how marketable it is. The most marketable technology-related skills are not technologically very complex, but involve coupling fairly basic technology with good sales and product/market fit skills. Having ungodly levels of technical skill produces a Sun Microsystems: great technology (ZFS, DTrace, Zones, etc.), but out of business. Having relatively poor levels of technical skill but a good product idea produces Facebook or Groupon.
  - stretchwithme 13y ago
    Yes, how marketable something is governs how much you get at the moment. How rewarding it is governs whether people endure the difficulty. This is what matters in the long run. And overall success happens in the long run.

by mjn 13y ago

cobrausn 13y ago

For better or for worse, the guy working hard to replace your roof is easier to replace than you are - this is because you have a skill set he doesn't that takes a lot of time and resources to develop. In addition, your work (likely) brings in more money to a company than his. As such, you get paid more. As an aside, have you ever noticed that (certified) plumbers and electricians make a lot of money? Same reasoning. I don't have a problem making more money now that I made myself valuable. I started off in retail, where you literally are one step away from being replaced by an automated kiosk.

mjn 13y ago
> I don't have a problem making more money now that I made myself valuable. That could be part of our differences in outlook. I don't feel I've really "made myself" valuable, I just have skills and interests that happened to be valuable. I've liked computers since I was a kid, and am reasonably adept with them. When I grew up, somewhat to my surprise, I found out people paid quite a bit of money for that kind of thing. It feels sort of like playing careers on easy-mode; even if I were to totally wash out into a low-end programming position, I could still easily make high 5 figures slinging web templates or Ruby or PHP or something. Other people who're harder-working and more talented than me make less, because they happened to be adept in the wrong thing (art or carpentry instead of coding, say). Were the era different, it could be the other way around, so I have a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" outlook: there are times when engineering was a poorly paid blue-collar occupation and skilled painters were highly rewarded. In that economy, I'd be poorer and some of my friends would be richer, through no change in our own skills...
- cobrausn 13y ago
  That difference in early career opportunities could easily be a part of it (the difference in outlook). I'm just saying there is no need to feel guilty - the world and the economy are fairly malleable, and it doesn't value hard work as much as it values hard work at something that is in demand, so 'following your passion' may not be the best way to make money. As you have said, it has never really been much different, it's just what people demand has changed.

stretchwithme 13y ago

Technology is what produces wealth and those that master it make more. And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. It should be this way if you want people to solve hard problems. If you want everyone working at the drive thru, pay everyone the same. Then it will be other countries that master the future.

mjn 13y ago
> And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. If anything, I think this part is probably backwards. The market does not reward you on the basis of how difficult the technology you mastered was, but on how marketable it is. The most marketable technology-related skills are not technologically very complex, but involve coupling fairly basic technology with good sales and product/market fit skills. Having ungodly levels of technical skill produces a Sun Microsystems: great technology (ZFS, DTrace, Zones, etc.), but out of business. Having relatively poor levels of technical skill but a good product idea produces Facebook or Groupon.
- stretchwithme 13y ago
  Yes, how marketable something is governs how much you get at the moment. How rewarding it is governs whether people endure the difficulty. This is what matters in the long run. And overall success happens in the long run.