i used one example to prove a point, but okay, nitpick and ignore as always, my point is this; people get paid because someone thinks they're worth/deserve that much, not because of effort
Squilliam said:
Are you arguing that what you say is 100% true? Then why for example are executives, higher level professors, presidents etc on average taller than the people under them? Does being taller make them more skilled? The worlds leading expert on carburetors doesn't get paid much nowadays since fuel injection came out. So obviously the skillset must also be relevant and in demand? There are many unattractive but otherwise brilliant singers which don't get recording contracts. Why do average students from Harvard/Yale get paid better than brillant students from lesser known universities? An executive is unlikely to be as skilled as a doctorate wielding engineering working for the company, and yet gets paid far more. Furthermore they may be paid more because their effects on their company are greater overall, but why does their seem to be an inverse relationship between paying executives still greater amounts and the performance overall of companies? |
I think you need to re-read my post, I quite clearly stated "People get paid based on the relationship between how rare a skillset is and how many people are willing to pay for the products produced from that skillset"
Beyond this, I think you're heavily focused on the skills that you believe are more valued or important to the position/company and not necessarily the skills that are really important. Consider Brittany Spears, she has always been a worse singer, dancer, with worse songs and (it could be argued) is a less attractive person than many of her rivals, but her ability to remain in the public eye regardless of what she is doing professionally is what makes her so valuable.
HappySqurriel said:
I think you need to re-read my post, I quite clearly stated "People get paid based on the relationship between how rare a skillset is and how many people are willing to pay for the products produced from that skillset" Beyond this, I think you're heavily focused on the skills that you believe are more valued or important to the position/company and not necessarily the skills that are really important. Consider Brittany Spears, she has always been a worse singer, dancer, with worse songs and (it could be argued) is a less attractive person than many of her rivals, but her ability to remain in the public eye regardless of what she is doing professionally is what makes her so valueble. |
Yeah and you need to re-read my post too. Executives are taller on average the higher up the corporate ladder you go. This does not relate to anything to do with what you said for example. There are also many people will valuable skills who drive taxis for a multitude of different reasons. There are numerous other factors aside from skill and the demand for that skill which determine whether a person recieves a high paying job or not.
Tease.
Squilliam said:
Are you arguing that what you say is 100% true? Then why for example are executives, higher level professors, presidents etc on average taller than the people under them? Does being taller make them more skilled? The worlds leading expert on carburetors doesn't get paid much nowadays since fuel injection came out. So obviously the skillset must also be relevant and in demand? There are many unattractive but otherwise brilliant singers which don't get recording contracts. Why do average students from Harvard/Yale get paid better than brillant students from lesser known universities? An executive is unlikely to be as skilled as a doctorate wielding engineering working for the company, and yet gets paid far more. Furthermore they may be paid more because their effects on their company are greater overall, but why does their seem to be an inverse relationship between paying executives still greater amounts and the performance overall of companies? |
Then theres the other side of the story. Take my father for example, dropped out of highschool to work because he got his girlfriend pregnant. Worked hard for several years and ended up buying a small quick-e-mart type store and then turned that in a 20 store wide chain. Give as many examples you want, but the will of the person will always prevail no matter what the odds in front of them. Thats just what I believe, and its worked out in my own life as well.
| SciFiBoy said: i used one example to prove a point, but okay, nitpick and ignore as always, my point is this; people get paid because someone thinks they're worth/deserve that much, not because of effort |
Ok, so lets talk about normal people. How is money not effort to you and me?
| SciFiBoy said: i used one example to prove a point, but okay, nitpick and ignore as always, my point is this; people get paid because someone thinks they're worth/deserve that much, not because of effort |
I dont know about where you work, but if I dont put effort into my job I get fired, plain and simple.
HappySqurriel said:
I have (personally) never seen someone who was highly successful because of natural talent without putting in a lot of effort to develop that talent. Beyond that, with how many "Stupid" people I have known who have overcome a (dramatic) disadvantage to be successful in their chosen field, and how many "Smart" people I have seen fail simply due to lazyness and poor choices, I don't accept the argument that any significant percentage of the population is failing because they don't have the opportunity to succeed. |
As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top.
Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them.
Rath said:
As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top. Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them. |
Are you mistaking talent with people who are just cunning? I mean ive seen many talented people get mowed over by less talented people but the other idividual just happened to be sneaky.
Rath said:
As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top. Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them. |
So?
The world is not fair, and when we try and make it fair, we make a world where even those who would have less due to less talent, now have far less.
Would you rather make $40 an hour for your effort, while a better looking person makes $45 an hour, or would you rather live in a world where both of you made $20 an hour?
I will take the $40, thank you very much.
TheRealMafoo said:
Ok, so lets talk about normal people. How is money not effort to you and me? |
of couse you have to put effort in to make money, thats not the point, in one job putting in lots of effort will earn you £65k a year, in another putting in not so much effort can earn you £650k, my point is this, how if we apply the logic of amout of effort equals amount of pay, is that fair?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
