cicerone imposter wrote:nimh, I know what you're saying. When we were kids, we lived in the city, but were required to go out to the fruit farms of Northern California to do harvesting work. It was back-breaking, hot, sweaty, hard work. After I graduated from college and became a bean counter, my earnings jumped, even though the work was sitting at a desk and running some numbers on a calculator - and later on a computer. c.i.
Yeh, interesting, that, isnt it?
From Communist countries we know such bizarre stories as how miners earned two, three times as much as teachers, and that of course is not a very effective stimulus for a society to increase its collective knowledge, education, etc. (Not that teachers in the West aren't underpaid as well). So I can see how jobs that in the end contribute most to, say, the intellectual-commercial progress of a country pay more, so as to encourage kids to strive to those, rather than to strive to be a miner.
But on the other hand I have always seen a perfectly logical premise in such things as the communist miner's income, too. The work of a miner
is simply much harder than that of a civil servant, so why shouldn't they be paid more? (Not that the party / ministry apparatchiks weren't paid still more in Rumania, too).
I am always reminded of this when I get into a discussion with those wholly loyal to the free market ideology, and they defend all income inequalities with a reference to how 'one should be rewarded for the work one does'. I mean, sure, if you take away all wage differentiation there's no stimulus left to work harder, better your skills, improve your efficiency, etc. But, however naive this may sound, I've simply never gotten how anyone, even a CEO, can be argued to "deserve" an income a hundred or a thousand times as high as a miner's. I mean - that much.
They can explain to me how that's just the way it works, in a market economy, and the unfairness that's implied is just the price we pay for an efficiently growing economy, but they can't convince me that it's morally right too, that such a guy somehow "deserves" to earn so manifold more because of what he does.
Oops ... took your human interest thread and turned it into politics again ... surreeh ..