|
|
|
|
|
|
by lujim
3891 days ago
|
|
|
I wouldn't feel too guilty about "value". In a world of finite resources with alternative uses, your value (how much you are paid) is often your share of how much revenue you help generate. Value (pay) and value (worth) are not the same thing. Why does a pro athlete make 10 mil and a 3rd grade teacher make 30k? Because more tangible revenue is generated by a single pro athlete than a single 3rd grade teacher in a given year. It sucks, but hating it or feeling guilty about it doesn't change it. |
|
|
I'd argue the huge pay differentials are often because humans are TERRIBLE at judging long term... anything. A pro athlete can fill a stadium at some $$ per seat, yes. If a pro athlete stops playing, what happens? the stadium stops filling as much, we potentially lose some ancillary jobs from decreased viewing population (but given the number of sports stars and the nature of teams, losing one outside of a very few likely won't cause much), but in the long term, what is the cost?
Now let's remove an equal number of teachers as could be paid with that single salary. Even if this is a low end athlete, given teacher pay, you're losing dozen/few dozen teachers. What is the long term cost to students who can no longer be educated, or get a much poorer education (or simply now have far bigger classes)?
I realize there are many holes in this argument as it asserts a lot about how money is distrbuted/what externalities exist, but I see it as one facet.
There are also the more well explored aspects of "we like to lionize celebrity/success" and "teachers don't have much political or social clout given their resources/our prioritization in society" (although this links back to my prior statements about long term value and society preferences.)
In summary, I think there's plenty of reason to hate/feel guilt about it, and work to change it. Yes, the feelings alone do nothing, but if no one is getting angry then certainly nothing will ever change.