4 ms·

They are set according to how many people want to do the job. (supply) and how much money the employer can make by hiring someone (whence demand). Not exactly;

They are set according to how many people want to do the job. (supply) and how much money the employer can make by hiring someone (whence demand). Not exactly; they are set by what people are willing to pay. Short-term profitability is one factor an employer takes into consideration. ...primary schools are not exactly profitable. They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I think what critics are getting at is that even ignoring the effects of sexism when men and women hold the same jobs, wages in male-dominated professions are driven by simplistic short-term profit considerations and discount social benefits (which translate ultimately into long-term profit for everyone). This results in systematic undervaluation of the kinds of work which tends to attract more women.

malandrew 13y ago
"simplistic short-term profit considerations" --> "direct profit considerations" FTFY. For example, Petroleum engineering is anything but short-term. What matters is that there is a very direct attribution of profit to work done. The attribution to profit for work done in all the poorly paid professions is very very indirect.
- vannevar 13y ago
  I'd agree with this. Good point.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Check out the prediction technique known as scenario planning most recently championed by Pierre Wack and Peter Schwartz at Royal Dutch Shell. There is a great case study of its use by Royal Dutch Shell when planning on whether or not it was a good investment to build an oil platform in the north sea. The conclusions in that particular case study included a pretty solid argument predicting the fall of the soviet union and its causes well before anyone else was predicting such a think.
ahomescu1 13y ago
> They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I imagine private schools are very profitable, but most students and teachers go to public schools which are funded by government (and then from taxpayers). The difference here isn't between "models", but between the free market and government funding. Only government can throw bags of money at stuff that's "socially valuable".
- vannevar 13y ago
  The difference here isn't between "models"... It is, actually. It's a different economic model (ie, formula) to express demand solely as a function of profitability than it is to describe it as driven by what someone is willing to pay, one possible factor in which is their profit motive. The reality is that we pay for things all the time without regard to their profitability. The fact that for-profit schools exist does not mean that there is no other valid rationale for paying teachers besides profit.
sandstrom 13y ago
> They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I think profit is used differently depending on context. I would guess this is a reference to 'profit' in the economic sense of the word. In that case, that is profit for the firm i.e. taking salary into account. Another industry that's traditionally taken as an example of zero-profitability is local [non-chain] restaurants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-profit_condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-profit_condition

malandrew 13y ago

"simplistic short-term profit considerations" --> "direct profit considerations" FTFY. For example, Petroleum engineering is anything but short-term. What matters is that there is a very direct attribution of profit to work done. The attribution to profit for work done in all the poorly paid professions is very very indirect.

vannevar 13y ago
I'd agree with this. Good point.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Check out the prediction technique known as scenario planning most recently championed by Pierre Wack and Peter Schwartz at Royal Dutch Shell. There is a great case study of its use by Royal Dutch Shell when planning on whether or not it was a good investment to build an oil platform in the north sea. The conclusions in that particular case study included a pretty solid argument predicting the fall of the soviet union and its causes well before anyone else was predicting such a think.

ahomescu1 13y ago

> They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I imagine private schools are very profitable, but most students and teachers go to public schools which are funded by government (and then from taxpayers). The difference here isn't between "models", but between the free market and government funding. Only government can throw bags of money at stuff that's "socially valuable".

vannevar 13y ago
The difference here isn't between "models"... It is, actually. It's a different economic model (ie, formula) to express demand solely as a function of profitability than it is to describe it as driven by what someone is willing to pay, one possible factor in which is their profit motive. The reality is that we pay for things all the time without regard to their profitability. The fact that for-profit schools exist does not mean that there is no other valid rationale for paying teachers besides profit.

sandstrom 13y ago

> They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I think profit is used differently depending on context. I would guess this is a reference to 'profit' in the economic sense of the word. In that case, that is profit for the firm i.e. taking salary into account. Another industry that's traditionally taken as an example of zero-profitability is local [non-chain] restaurants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-profit_condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-profit_condition