Which Job is Significantly overpaid ?

[Bagilson]

The thing to bear in mind is that every single resources consumed in a society must first be produced. The more a society produces, the more prosperous it is. From this it follows that, in a just society, an individual’s salary should be proportional to how much their efforts increase production. From this standpoint, effective CEOs, the ones who enable large groups of people to produce far more than they consume, are justified in receiving a large salary.
Non-productive individuals (artists, entertainers, athletes, welfare recipients, retirees, hookers) must be paid using surplus resources. The pay for these people is going to depend on the amount of surplus a society produces. That is why you currently see the majority of highly paid entertainers/artists/athletes in western societies. It is interesting to note the rise this class of people in societies of increasing affluence such as China and India.

 

[Darts]

If you made Jess than a teacher with a post grad, then you picked the wrong post grad.
I'm speaking of PER DIEM, not gross. Anyway, I caught up quickly and surpassed her but she was married by then.

All the teachers I know are overworked and underpaid with no summers off. They all work to get thru summer. It’s a myth they get summers off. ???????? ok.

 

[Bagilson]

If you made Jess than a teacher with a post grad, then you picked the wrong post grad.

All the teachers I know are overworked and underpaid with no summers off. They all work to get thru summer. It’s a myth they get summers off.

Teachers are paid year round. The level of compensation given for the job is appropriate to the challenges of the job and the training required to do the job. The first few years are very much a challenge as you figure out how to deal with kids and work out the lesson plans. After that, it’s not that hard.

 

[Brill]

The thing to bear in mind is that every single resources consumed in a society must first be produced. The more a society produces, the more prosperous it is. From this it follows that, in a just society, an individual’s salary should be proportional to how much their efforts increase production. From this standpoint, effective CEOs, the ones who enable large groups of people to produce far more than they consume, are justified in receiving a large salary.
Non-productive individuals (artists, entertainers, athletes, welfare recipients, retirees, hookers) must be paid using surplus resources. The pay for these people is going to depend on the amount of surplus a society produces. That is why you currently see the majority of highly paid entertainers/artists/athletes in western societies. It is interesting to note the rise this class of people in societies of increasing affluence such as China and India.

How do you put an economic value on a job that creates nothing yet is essential?
Garbage collectors, hydro workers, sewer maintenance, police, firemen, teachers, doctors etc do not create anything yet are vital.

 

[Bagilson]

How do you put an economic value on a job that creates nothing yet is essential?
Garbage collectors, hydro workers, sewer maintenance, police, firemen, teachers, doctors etc do not create anything yet are vital.

They are all support for production. At that point salary becomes a question of incentive which is a function the supply and demand for people to do that function.

 

[JackBurton]

Thanks for proving the holes in your argument. I didn’t have to do anything

 

[silentkisser]

If the workers are so smart then why dont they start their own company and cut the CEO out and make all the profit for their own hard work.?

The truth is that they're too dumb to do so. They get paid so little because they're told how to do a simple task and they repeat it over and over again without any thought.

The CEO on the other hand makes so much because he is responsible for overseeing the entire operation, making decisions on a daily basis that can make or break the entire company.

The simple minded people working in the warehouse will never understand this

I don't disagree with part of this. But the reality is that many CEOs are not that great. Sure, there are some fantastic ones, but other that can't find their ass with both hands. The issue is their pay is so out of whack with what the average employee makes. Do they deserve good compensation? Sure. But is it 300 times what the average employee makes?

Plus, a lot of the compensation is based on stock options, so they juice the share price so they make more money. It doesn't necessarily help the company in the long run. Look at BCE for a bit. Every year they slash jobs despite the group making millions in profit. Like Ryan Doyle at CFRB that many on this board were sad to see leave. Did Ryan make too much? Maybe. But it was a fraction of what Wade Oosterman makes. But the reality is job cuts tend to cause stock prices to rise, because investors think it means the company will become more efficient. But does it? No. They still need to hire new people to replace those cut, but instead of a full-time job, they get a contract or are freelancers. Cheaper, but more efficient?

Bottom line is this, CEOs tend not to care too much about the long-term viability of a company. They know they might only have the top job for 5-10 years, and they've negotiated themselves a golden parachute no matter what happens. So, they try to get as much value for their stock options as possible to enrich themselves. Nearly all CEOs are vastly overpaid.

As for the supposed "unskilled" labour at a place like Kelloggs (as some other post mentioned)....While it might not require an apprenticeship or a college degree, there is still skill involved. There is a reason Kellogg had to buckle and settle with the union. The scabs couldn't operate the machinery, and production plunged. Hell, they even managed to derail a train...Amazon will eventually find this out. Their whole hiring premise is that the warehouse people are replaceable, so they treat them poorly. What happens when the talent pool is drained and they can't get new workers?

 

[Darts]

Capitalism is a terrible system except there is none better at producing wealth for the most people. Even poor people in the U.S. are richer than the vast majority of people in many countries.

 

[sp407]

What a snobby point of view.

And completely erroneous too.
Management is now rueing the day of all the union busting and union weakening done in past 4 decades. Powers that be sold the idea of every man for themselves on the workplace and now they got it. Good luck to herding cats, let's see the CEOs work for their big paychecks now and build their workforce instead of dismantling it

 

[curr3n_c1000]

Capitalism is a terrible system except there is none better at producing wealth for the most people. Even poor people in the U.S. are richer than the vast majority of people in many countries.

LOL, Cancel everyone's credit line and see how fast that American system you love so much crumbles.

There is no Capitalism. It's Creditism.

 

[frankcastle]

I don't want to beat up teachers but here are 3 points.
1) Great hours
2) Get the Summer off
3) Retire at 55-60 with a fully indexed pension

P.S. I use to date several teachers 3 lifetimes ago. They made more per diem than me with a post-grad degree.

Sure but you need to do an apples to apples comparisons.

Jobs with longer hours and less pay typically are easier to get and reqiire less qualifications.

You need to compare it to jobs that require a masters/6 years of training.

You also need to compare it to the work conditions of jobs where a person has been working at it for 10 plus years as it takes 10 years to get max salary.

And again you need to compare it to jobs where there is a high degree of impact/importance.... raising kids and producing a work force.

Cops and firefighters are paid similarly and get similar benefits. Do you have a problem with them?

 

[frankcastle]

You cant look at it as a per diem pay when the pay is based on a salary.

By definition a salary is a set amount independent of thr hours of work.

Also, id wager that when you calculated the per diem you didnt factor in the time not spent in front of the kids e.g. preparing lessons, marking, meetings, writing report cards, extracurricular activities etc.

But if you really want to take 100k divide by 190 school days (actually higher) and divide by 6 hour day youre looking at 87 an hour. Which is great but plenty of jobs pay as well or better. But they all have something in common a high level of educatiin or training and hard to get those jobs.


Anyways, the fact still remains that the median salary of a univeristy educated person in ontario around 2019 was 85k so a teacher who has 2 degrees, 10 years of experience, and provides an important service is not making an unusual amount.

I think your argument falls apart as the perks of being a teacher is not unusual when you compare it to similar jobs.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

The thing to bear in mind is that every single resources consumed in a society must first be produced. The more a society produces, the more prosperous it is. From this it follows that, in a just society, an individual’s salary should be proportional to how much their efforts increase production. From this standpoint, effective CEOs, the ones who enable large groups of people to produce far more than they consume, are justified in receiving a large salary.
Non-productive individuals (artists, entertainers, athletes, welfare recipients, retirees, hookers) must be paid using surplus resources. The pay for these people is going to depend on the amount of surplus a society produces. That is why you currently see the majority of highly paid entertainers/artists/athletes in western societies. It is interesting to note the rise this class of people in societies of increasing affluence such as China and India.

The problem here is this way of thinking is very dated. This works and makes sense back in like 1920's, when production was in your shops and there was little to no separation between owner and worker.

In today's world what really is production? And more important, If I'm the one producing far more than consuming, why is his pay going up?

These terms don't make sense anymore because they have out lived there original purpose.

 

[Darts]

We should start a "Which Jobs are significantly Underpaid" thread?

Medical residents, articling lawyers and TA's for sure.

 

[Bagilson]

The problem here is this way of thinking is very dated. This works and makes sense back in like 1920's, when production was in your shops and there was little to no separation between owner and worker.

In today's world what really is production? And more important, If I'm the one producing far more than consuming, why is his pay going up?

These terms don't make sense anymore because they have out lived there original purpose.

This same process is still in play, just writ large. Workers have been replaced by unions and owners by corporations. The process didn’t disappear, it just evolved.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

This same process is still in play, just writ large. Workers have been replaced by unions and owners by corporations. The process didn’t disappear, it just evolved.

Is it the same process or did it evolve? It can only be one.

Of course it has evolved but our thinking or views have not kept up with the evolving process.

These terms have out lived it's purpose.

 

[Kracker]

What a snobby point of view.

Gotta see the humour in Charlemagne throwing in with the peasants.

Free market jobs pay what they pay because high pay draws good candidates and vice versa.

Probably the most over or badly paid are politicians, because their motivations are more power than money and because measuring performance is almost impossible. High-ranking politicians in parties that are out of power can get zero accomplished for decades.

 

[Greekgod69]

t’s weird how much CEOs are idolized and paid in Canadian society for how little value they actually add to a company compared to the people doing all the technical work.

Any sort of middle manager is overpaid since most of the time they don’t even know the job of the people they are supposed to be managing. Their sole purpose is to take credit for the accomplishments of their underlings and occasionally fucking things up for you to fix.

 

[barnacler]

Second on the list is University Professors.

OMG yes.

 

[rhuarc29]

• Regional managers or CEOs with short-term mindsets. Every year I see more examples of this amongst my clients. All they're doing is chasing their next bonus, which means they do anything to appear good to their corporate overlords or shareholders. I've seen people laid off in order to cut expenses a couple weeks before a quarter ends. On the flip side, I've seen a whole bunch of overtime worked in order to push sales out the door prior to the quarter's end, only to have people standing around doing nothing the month after because the warehouse is overstocked. These short-term decisions cost money in the long run.

• No / Low skilled workers with shitty work ethic. This wasn't so much a problem until the labor shortage, but with companies desperate for workers these types are actually getting jobs. Come in late, take four 15-minute bathroom breaks per day, wander around working at looking busy instead of being busy, leave early, skip days without justification or notice. Normally these types would be turfed immediately. Now they're making $20+/hour.

• Most public workers. The concept of "overpaid" has to be relative, because the money pool is finite. Public workers are already generously paid for their roles relative to their private counterparts, but they also tend to get very generous benefits/pensions, as well as having less oversight and consequences for failures.