Am I the only one?

[Perrone]

Our jobs just don't exactly peak the public interest.

This part of your post stood out the most to me. You're right. They don't peak interest, because people take them for granted. I bet if we all quit they'd be begging us to go back to changing their oil. It surprises me how many people don't even know how to change their own oil.....Anyway, people work because they have to work to make money to live off of. Other people use these services that you work so hard to provide and treat you like crap as you provide them, meanwhile you get paid $10/hr for changing their oil when in reality if it wasn't for people like you they'd be walking to work because their car would be on the side of the road somewhere At least the tow truck drivers would still have their job then right?

 

[GC7]

In that case people need us to work so badly to provide the services we all provide shouldn't we get paid millions a year too? If nobody needed us we wouldn't get paid right? Nothing you say justifies why they get paid so much. Even those of us who have jobs we love and always wanted still don't get paid as much as these guys. I'm sure theres football players out there that hate football but it's all their good at so they just do it and make tons of money, and for what? to run back and forth with a ball of pig skin? (sorry if it offends anyone, I'm not a sports fan)

I understand completely. But you have to realize that athletes and movie stars getting paid well has more to do with those who are willing to pay and less with what skill that person is utilizing to get that pay.

So what I mean is, if you're a plumber and I'm a carpenter, we're most likely going to get paid at a market rate. Basically, in a given area, with a fixed advertising budget, you'll probably make around the same rate that other plumbers and carpenters make.

Matt Damon, on the other hand, has an agent whose job it is to promote the fact that Matt Damon, is, well, Matt Damon. This is where that pay comes into play. His agent is going to promote the heck out of his next movie via TV commercials, posters, website ads, radio ads, whatever else.

The public perception of these ads pretty much determines what he ultimately gets paid. This does not happen with 1 movie, but with all movies over a span of time.

So if Matt Damon's next movie grosses $200M in the opening weekend, that obviously mean average citizens willingly put up the $10-$20 in ticket prices to go see his movie. This relays the message to his agent that the promotion tactics did indeed work. This money will go to the producing studio who will use the earnings to fund the next great movie, which will have more aggressive promotion and should net more profit.

Do any civilian-grade jobs utilize this much promotion? Is anyone going to highly advertise the fact that you're a great plumber? This happens sometimes with doctors and lawyers, but typically not with teachers or grocery store clerks.

So, yeah these people are getting paid very well because the public perception is that money spent on them, is well spent. Change the public opinion and maybe pro athletes and actors won't be around any more.

 

[Perrone]

Change the public opinion and maybe pro athletes and actors won't be around any more.

God, I wish I could. I don't want them to not be around. I just don't think they deserve to get paid so much when they are almost all a bunch of brainless idiots who waste it all on useless junk anyway.

In my opinion those teachers and plumbers are the ones who should be making the big bucks. The teachers are the ones setting our kids up for success (or failure) in their futures. The less they get paid the less they care about their job most likely. The less they care about their job the less they bother to teach the kids more than what is required and if you guys haven't looked lately isn't much. Plumbers is pretty much given, lol. Anyone who is willing to mess with crap infested pipes for a living deserves a decent paycheck.

 

[chefsamuel]

Good point. In that case I am totally taking the tow truck guy as my #1 pick in the next Joe Blow draft. I'm taking this franchise to the next level. But seriously I agree with you on some level, but no matter how important our jobs are to society, no one is going to pay to watch us do it. My profession is lucky enough to get some press and get people interested in it, but the faces of our industry aren't even real chefs most times, just someone with a decent personality who looks good on camera. The real chefs are the ones making the $10 an hour in the back of a hot kitchen 18 hrs a day, and coming home to turn on the TV to the latest "Brangelinaadoptioninthirdworldcountry#15" story. They are rich because we made them that way, because as a collective whole we would rather pay attention to other peoples lives and exploits than our own lack luster lives. Reality TV is a perfect example. These people have no talent whatsoever. Cant hit a ball. Can't Act. Can't sing. But millions of us tune in every week to watch a part of their lives because it is different than our own. The grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[chefsamuel]

I know I put "some level" but I actually agree completely. It's late and my brain isn't working that well lol. I just mean it's not gonna change till we all change.

 

[Perrone]

I know I put "some level" but I actually agree completely. It's late and my brain isn't working that well lol. I just mean it's not gonna change till we all change.

It's cool. It's late and I don't think anyone's brain is working just right. I'm still a little worked up about it lol. Guess I'll finish my drink and get some rest. Glad I'm not the only one this bugs though.

 

[Perrone]

double post sorry

 

[ZombieHunter]

Ok take recording artists, for example sake lets use KISS and Nine Inch Nails, Sure Kiss over merchandised and made UBER-Millions and perpetuated the recording industry, then there are people like Trent Reznor who after his recording contract was up told the labels to go SHOVE IT, and proceeded to release music for free and record even MORE music, and released even MORE for free......no you are telling me someone like that doesn't deserve to make $!!!

I will put it this way, you think they are ALL RICH OMG!!! but the reality is most of them are in so much debt created by the false security of their multi-million dollar anchors they do NOT OWN they are just as if not WORSE off than 90% of hark working John Q. Lookup how many celebrities are in trouble with uncle sam for back taxes, then look at how many have had to "downgrade" from a 30 bedroom to a 15, and realize they are still doing it on the BANK'S DIME.

Michael Jackson for instance was WORTHLESS before he died, he had so much debt a normal person would cry at the unfathomable amount of zeroes, but when he died *POOF* rich, just filthy rich, and the promoter got FILTHY RICH from his performing artist insurance to the tune of like 80 million. There are atrocities all over the world, the least of which is celebrities and there worthless wealth.

 

[Biggsly]

One thing that is great about America. We can all make as much as we want. I don't want to be an actor, so I can't really say much about how much they make. If I wanted to take acting lessons and move to Cali, I might be able to make alot too. I think as long as we live in a free country we are able to make all that we are willing to to put out there. I can go back to school right now and become a doctor, but I know the only one I can blame for me not going to medical school is me. I don't know. I guess I have never been a "keep up with the Jones" person. I make more then some of my friends and I have friends that make alot more then me. I am just happy to be in a country that if I decide tomorrow that I want to quit and try something new, I can.

 

[Talacker]

May Walter Williams set you straight...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams042303.asp

From whence comes income?

Here's part of a letter from a reader: "A hard-working, conscientious person can earn $10,000 a year in a fast-food restaurant. At the same time, movie stars and athletes, who make very little contribution to society, can earn in excess of $10,000,000 a year. A baseball player earns more with every swing of the bat than many people do in a year."

The reader's inference is that there's something unfair about income differences of such magnitude. It also reflects ignorance about the sources of income in a free society; that's music to the ears of political demagogues with an insatiable taste for command and control.

I think some of the ignorance and much of the demagoguery stems from the usage of the phrase "income distribution." It might make some people think income is distributed; in other words, there's a dealer of dollars. The reason that some people have few dollars while others have millions upon millions is that the dollar dealer is unjust.

An alternative vision might be that there's a pile of money intended for all of us. The reason why some are rich and some are poor is that the greedy rich got to the pile first and took their unfair share. Clearly, in either case, justice would require a re-dealing, or redistribution, of the dollars, where the government takes ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners.

Most people, except a few congressmen, would view those explanations of the sources of income as nonsense. In a free society, for the most part, income is earned. It's earned by serving and pleasing one's fellow man.

Why is it that Michael Jordan earns $33 million a year and I don't even earn one-half of one percent of that? I can play basketball, but my problem is with my fellow man, who'd plunk down $200 to see Jordan play and wouldn't pay a dollar to see me play. I'm also willing to sell my name as endorsements for sneakers and sport clothing, but no one has approached me.

The bottom line explanation of Michael Jordan's income relative to mine lies in his capacity to please his fellow man. The person who takes exception to Jordan's salary or sees him, as my letter-writer does, as making "little contribution to society" is really disagreeing with decisions made by millions upon millions of independent decision-makers who decided to fork over their money to see Jordan play. The suggestion that Congress ought to take part of Jordan's earnings and give it to someone else is the same as arrogantly saying, "I know better who ought to receive those dollars."

Another part of the explanation for Jordan's high salary is simply a matter of supply and demand. If there were tens and tens of millions of people with Jordan's talents, you can rest assured he wouldn't be earning $33 million a year. And similarly you can bet that if people really valued hamburgers and there were only a few people with those skills, they'd be earning much more than they currently earn.

We might think of dollars as being "certificates of performance." The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That's the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him. Contrast that moral standard to Congress' standing offer, "Vote for me and I'll take what your fellow man produces and give it to you."