Re: Pardon my enthusiasm

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu>
>
> Garbage collectors and educators get paid  what they deserve (=what their
> work is worth), as do CEOs and NBA players - by definition. Their decision
> to continue employment in that particular job is itself an implicit
> acknowledgement that their perceived self-worth is at least what they're
> being paid. Otherwise, they would undoubtedly seek greener pastures
> elsewhere.

Yes.  And no.  You're absolutely right when you say they are paid what 
they are worth -- by definition.  I agree.  But I do not equate "worth" 
with "deserve".  (Bear with me.)  The former is a function of economics, 
as you've said.  The latter is a subjective determination that you, or I, 
or Jim Hill, or anybody, makes.  In other words, I will not accept that 
CEO's are worth more than garbage collectors or teachers.  That is not the 
society I aspire to live in.  However, it's true that that is how it is.  
I just don't have to "buy into it" or agree with it.

The decision to continue employment in a particular job is dependent on 
many factors, none of which necessarily include a person's feeling of 
self-worth.  I think most people who clean toilets for a living think of 
themselves as worth more than $5 an hour.  They are sentient beings, after 
all.  In a purely economic sense, six hours of minimum-wage work is 
equivalent to $30 or so -- the price of, say, a video game.  It's not the 
same as saying a *person* is worth the same as a video game.  They have 
families, feelings, talents, and characteristics that far outweigh a 
product, as much as I may like video games, they don't stack up to people.
   In the pure economic model, however, that's the case.  Problem is, 
people (and many things) are more than just one kind of paradigm.  They 
are more complicated than any one model we choose to use in discussing 
them.

Plus, there's lot's of people who seek greener pastures -- whether those 
pastures are fenced in, within travelling distance, etc, are examples of 
things that further complicate the actual application in the real world.

> It doesn't matter how "deserving" or "underpaid" a certain profession 
> seems
> to us. It  doesn't matter if a dumb, barely literate jock gets paid 100
> times what a brilliant scientist does. If there's a market for his 
> services
> that will sustain that kind of remuneration, then that's his value. There
> are far more people who can be garbage collectors or teachers than those
> who can play in the NBA. Antoine Walker makes $11M/yr. because there is
> enough interest in his services to pay him that kind of money. Our
> involvement in this list should alert you to that.

It certainly does.  I merely suggest that someone's "worth" is more than 
what our economic model says it is.  It *does* matter how "deserving" a 
profession is to us -- or at least, it *can*.  While you're correct in 
pointing out that, in current practice, this isn't the case, I wasn't so 
much trying to characterize current practice as point out that, for me, 
and for example, people who work on the infrastructure *are* in fact more 
deserving of rewards than mere athletes, no matter the pleasure or 
entertainment value the latter gives to us or society as a whole.  The 
former is much more important, (thus, to me, more "deserving") -- they get 
paid less, though.

> You may say, but what about those who are grossly overpaid, as we perceive
> it? Look at Walter McCarty, for example - is he worth 3 mil/yr.? Was 
> Pitino
> worth 50 mil, or some CEO who drove a corporation into the ground, worth
> $300 large? No, but the market, through the agency of Pitino, Gaston, or
> some board of directors, respectively, at one point perceived their value
> to be such.

Right, but if you *only* looked at this issue using an economic model, 
your first sentence (in the above paragraph) is impossible.  No one can be 
"overpaid" because, by definition, people are paid what they are "worth".  
I have a feeling you can see what I'm saying, if only because you 
undoubtedly think Wallah and Il Duce are/were overpaid.  You clearly have 
an internal idea of "deservedness" because you don't necessarily follow 
the economic model blindly.  I may have mischaracterized you here, but 
from what I've read of your thoughts over the years, I highly doubt it.

> You can bet Waltah won't be signed to a similar
> contract again (if he's lucky enough to remain in the NBA), Pitino won't
> get a $50 mil offer again, and that CEO will be out of a job.

This is *probably* true, but never underestimate the strangeness of a 
market.  Pitino (or even McCarty) may get a big payoff again merely 
because some franchise needs (or thinks they need) what these guys have to 
offer.  Like big men in the NBA: are they worth more than other kinds of 
players: yes, in that they will get paid more because of their height, but 
no, because they aren't as good as some others.  The former is what is 
important in the NBA; the latter is what is important to me in regards to 
"real life" jobs.  That's all.

Bird