[JumpCrisscross]

> Do we really think the top lifeguard in LA is putting his life at risk?

Risk is meaningful to this discussion in that it deters people from taking the job. That reduces supply and boosts price. I don’t think lifeguards are paid a premium for being supply constrained.

California has a public sector compensation problem. (In particular, its unwillingness to investigate overtime fraud.) But estimating pay solely based on how dangerous the job is won’t be accurate.

[jsharp]

Being a lifeguard in LA would be a dream job for millions of people especially if they could make $400k a year doing it!

This is low skilled labor! The only requirement is to be a strong swimmer and have basic leadership skills.

I don't think supply of willing lifeguards is a constraint here.

I'd imagine if LA county put out an ad to replace their top lifeguard and offered even $200k a year they'd receive thousands of applications from perfectly qualified people.

[JumpCrisscross]

> This is low skilled labor

Agree with everything you said except this.

Teenagers lifeguarding at suburban pools is unskilled labor. For an urban beach, I want someone with medical training—say, a paramedic—as well as knowledge of the local oceanography and meteorology. They need to be able to pull people out of the water, yes, but also be able to close beaches when they become unsafe and anticipate when things will become unsafe.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

The dude making $400k is managing something like a thousand people. How is that unskilled labor?