3 ms·
The argument that PhDs should earn more because their education costed more is faulty. Salary is a price, you see. It is governed by laws of economics, supply a
by othmanaba 12y ago
The argument that PhDs should earn more because their education costed more is faulty. Salary is a price, you see. It is governed by laws of economics, supply and demand. Scientists should not earn more, because their value is unknown. Why would anyone pay $200,000 to someone who "might" create an amazing paper? Whereas those in investment banking earn much more than that because they provide much greater value to the employer. One should be pragmatic about life and not feel entitled just because they incurred high costs.
- MereInterest 12y agoI think that the point is the other way around. Why should anybody go into science, given how little compensation there is for it? And that is the problem. It is easier to pay people for things with short payback periods. That's why the car salesman gets a bonus for each car sold, but the engineer who designed the car does not. The engineer was more essential yo the product, but the connection between the salesman and the money is more obvious. The scientist is more useful to society, but the investment banker has a more obvious connection to money, so the banker gets paid more. We should add more incentive to the scientists, because otherwise the rational choice is to leave science.
- jschwartzi 12y agoAnd more importantly, we should ask ourselves what kind of society we would prefer to live in. Would we like to live a life as a used car salesman, surrounded by other used car salesmen, talking about our weekly sales numbers with our used car salesmen wives?
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoA scientist generates knowledge. An investment banker generates debt. Debt is just promises, promises that someone else has to pay. Ultimately, those promises can only be paid using matter, energy, and knowledge.