[asmithmd1]

You seem to think the market for jobs operates with something approaching market economics. If this were true then we should be running PSAs to encourage people to become investment bankers because the incredibly high salaries paid are indicating a severe shortage. Instead I see commercials encouraging people to become teachers - if there were really a shortage wouldn't salaries rise by market forces?

The truth is economists have long recognized that the job market is different than the market for most other products. For one thing wages are "sticky," they don't change every couple of days the way the price for gas or a loaf of bread does.

[jterce]

You're right. You're also slightly wrong.

Yes, labor is not exactly comparable in market terms to other products--more sticky prices, more difficulty in estimating value, etc.--but the principle and its consequences remain.

We DON'T HAVE to run PSAs to encourage people to become investment bankers precisely because there are high salaries. The salaries are the advertizement and they're incredibly effective.

As far as teachers, we don't have a shortage. We don't need more teachers, we need better teachers. How to attract those better teachers is unclear--a strictly higher salary would attract more of all caliber of teachers which would not help. I suppose commercials are thought to be one way and I think it's likely better compensation will have to be a part of it as well.

[spiantino]

The labor market is different than a commodity market, but that doesn't mean economics don't apply. There are switching costs, people are not fungible, and labor skills represent a huge time/money investment.

But this misses the point. We want our economic system to be as fair as possible, and in most cases (and certainly in the case of flight attendants), the "fairest" solution and the one that pays what flight attendants "deserve" to make is the fair market wage.