There is a really good article posted at AlterNet, "Why Do People Who Work in Finance Earn So Much More Than the Rest of Us?" Among other issues, it does bring up a question that makes capitalist economists a bit uneasy. Why is it that certain types of work are more valued than others?
For example, why are the jobs that elected leaders or lawyers perform more valuable than that of janitors? On the surface, it could be argued that politicians, lawyers and other types of white collar professionals require years of education to perfect their craft and, consequently, they should be rewarded for all the time it takes to develop a certain level of competency.
However, in my estimation, there are two problems with this rationale. For starters, competency (a rather subjective term anyway) in today's world rarely impacts financial compensation. Look at all the CEOs who routinely run their companies into the ground. Regardless of how well they do or don't do, most all of them come out smelling like roses.
Besides, what does it mean to be a competent hedge fund manager? You're buying and selling things made out of thin air, items that truly have little productive use other than to make a handful of people rich. You can't feed a derivative to starving person or build a house with one. Hedge fund managers get paid egregious amounts of money for dabbling in a make-believe world of smoke and mirrors.
The second rationale I often hear about workers in low-level service-oriented jobs is that anyone can do it. Such work takes little expertise. So what? Why should that make a lick of difference?
Yes, almost anyone could collect your trash or sweep the floors or serve you a fat-ladened hamburger or wipe your aging father's butt, but the fact is that somebody needs to do it. Can you imagine what life would look like today if there were no janitors? No nurse's aides? No garbage collectors? No day labor or farmworkers?
The people who hold those jobs on the lowest rungs of society are the ones that keep modern society humming. Without them, politicians couldn't legislate, judges couldn't adjudicate and teachers couldn't educate. If they all vanished overnight, our technological world would quickly grind to a halt.
So, since they are the sinews that hold the body together, shouldn't we value them more, not less?
For example, why are the jobs that elected leaders or lawyers perform more valuable than that of janitors? On the surface, it could be argued that politicians, lawyers and other types of white collar professionals require years of education to perfect their craft and, consequently, they should be rewarded for all the time it takes to develop a certain level of competency.
However, in my estimation, there are two problems with this rationale. For starters, competency (a rather subjective term anyway) in today's world rarely impacts financial compensation. Look at all the CEOs who routinely run their companies into the ground. Regardless of how well they do or don't do, most all of them come out smelling like roses.
Besides, what does it mean to be a competent hedge fund manager? You're buying and selling things made out of thin air, items that truly have little productive use other than to make a handful of people rich. You can't feed a derivative to starving person or build a house with one. Hedge fund managers get paid egregious amounts of money for dabbling in a make-believe world of smoke and mirrors.
The second rationale I often hear about workers in low-level service-oriented jobs is that anyone can do it. Such work takes little expertise. So what? Why should that make a lick of difference?
Yes, almost anyone could collect your trash or sweep the floors or serve you a fat-ladened hamburger or wipe your aging father's butt, but the fact is that somebody needs to do it. Can you imagine what life would look like today if there were no janitors? No nurse's aides? No garbage collectors? No day labor or farmworkers?
The people who hold those jobs on the lowest rungs of society are the ones that keep modern society humming. Without them, politicians couldn't legislate, judges couldn't adjudicate and teachers couldn't educate. If they all vanished overnight, our technological world would quickly grind to a halt.
So, since they are the sinews that hold the body together, shouldn't we value them more, not less?
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here!
ReplyDeleteI don't know why people in service jobs are undervalued. Ideas, anyone?
I agree with Lydia, you spoke my mind with this one. People who do real things get paid little, people who work with imaginary things get all the money.
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side, it means we "proles" have all the power. Strikes work. This is why I am pro union, despite the corruption often found in them. The idea itself it a good one.
I agree that the union concept is a good one and for that reason I am pro-union too, but there's no question the top rungs of many unions today are corrupt or have sold out.
ReplyDeleteThough it has fallen out of favor, I favor the concept of the IWW (Wobblies). When you have various unions within each type of industry, they end up competing for the same crumbs.
In older times, "service jobs" were done by "servants (who weren't paid, so much s owned."
ReplyDeleteThe only way, on an individual basis, that work and money (income) will ever make any kind of balanced sense is if you work for yourself. (The small business model.
Unfortunately, when you succeed, your sole-proprietorship needs some additional help (accountants, janitors, delivery guys). And if you're really successful, it becomes big business...then you look for corporate protections.
Not all CEOs run their business into the ground. I do like the idea though that the highest paid person in a company should not be paid more than 4 times the lowest paid person.
Baroness, it goes against all that a good American believes, but it is possible to succeed without succeeding too much. That is, know when you're business is big enough and keep it there. I presume it can be done.
ReplyDeleteThis, in fact, is the idea behind sustainability.
Since you presume so, let me know how it works for you when you start a business.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, competitive markets work against sustainability. I've seen too many small, "successful enough" businesses fail or just give up in the face of serious competition.
Actually though, isn't this post really about the issue of minimum wage?