I never said that teachers should make less than garbage collectors because they enjoy psychic income. These two jobs are not generally substitutable in the eyes of potential employees, since they are so different. Sorry if I gave the impression that any job that enjoys psychic income would pay less than any other job — certainly this is not true.
For example, college professors receive psychic income, but they make much more than garbage collectors. They make less than stock brokers, which is another career option available to people who can get PhDs, in general.
>Sorry if I gave the impression that any job that enjoys psychic income would pay less than any other job — certainly this is not true.
That's not the impression you gave. You gave the impression that garbage collectors make more than teachers.
>This is widely cited as the reason that teachers earn less than other professions, and why garbage collectors earn more
Teachers < other professions < garbage collectors
I get now that you meant to say was
Teachers < similar professions to teachers
Garbage collectors > similar professions to garbage collectors
I've heard many arguments that teacher make less than X profession, so the former wasn't an unreasonable interpretation given the phrasing.
Knowing what you meant to say. I don't think garbage collector pay is good supporting evidence for psychic income. Garbage collector pays well because it is a physically unpleasant job. What's an example of a substitute job that is similarly physically unpleasant that pays less because people find it fulfilling?
For example, college professors receive psychic income, but they make much more than garbage collectors. They make less than stock brokers, which is another career option available to people who can get PhDs, in general.