A big part of the problem is that we don’t measure externalities well. Like teachers and artists produce way more value than they’re paid for. Instead we only reward value that can be directly measured by your boss, and that value is compensated at as low a level as the boss can get away with.
I understand that once a person has started a career, switching to a totally different career comes at a high price, so I suppose that instead I should ask “Why do you think that a person would choose to become a teacher, if he didn’t expect the satisfaction of teaching to make up for the relatively low pay?” The pay isn’t a secret and teaching generally requires a college education, which implies the opportunity to pick a different major and then start a different career.
I knew a woman from a poor background who was the first person in her family to go to college. She chose a major in English and a minor in Women’s Studies. I’m not saying that English majors can never get well-paying jobs, but I come from a “you can pick any career you want - doctor or lawyer” background so I was very surprised by her decision. Why would a person who didn’t have any money pick to study something that isn’t great for earning money? But she wasn’t stupid - she really liked English literature… Maybe she ended up working as a teacher.
I mean even from a pure market-based perspective, there is currently a teacher shortage and class sizes are too big, therefore we should pay teachers more to move up the supply curve. But also labor is not a textbook supply-demand curve anyways and is inelastic.
Because we force people to decide their life’s career track at age 17, before the brain is finished developing and you don’t know shit about self-sufficiency and careers and money.
A lot of people tend to want to study things they’re interested in, even if it doesn’t lead to a high paying job. You said yourself she was interested in English literature so that’s why she went with that as her major. It’s also a lot easier to learn and study something you actually care about than something you find boring or are just doing it to get paid. Like if I went to college, I’d find film studies classes or possibly some math ones way more for me cause I like that stuff, but if you tried to force me to take classes to become a doctor, lawyer, or trade school I’d flunk out hard and/or struggle to even get a passing grade.
You wish you value was tied to your productivity. It would be a step up from this.
Right? Like Socialism’s goal is to build a meritocracy, as opposed to the oligarchy we have now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
Meritocracies are still terrible and not the thing to strive for.
A big part of the problem is that we don’t measure externalities well. Like teachers and artists produce way more value than they’re paid for. Instead we only reward value that can be directly measured by your boss, and that value is compensated at as low a level as the boss can get away with.
They also receive more non-monetary satisfaction from their work. It balances out.
I can’t eat warm fuzzy feelings
You can eat with me. Bring the warm fuzzy feelings, too, if you can manage.
No it doesn’t. You can’t pay rent with non-monetary satisfaction
It really doesn’t. I’m sure that satisfaction exists, but when your pay doesn’t always let you eat, it’s hard to stay put for the satisfaction.
But then why stay put, if the pay and the satisfaction together are not sufficient compensation?
student debt
I understand that once a person has started a career, switching to a totally different career comes at a high price, so I suppose that instead I should ask “Why do you think that a person would choose to become a teacher, if he didn’t expect the satisfaction of teaching to make up for the relatively low pay?” The pay isn’t a secret and teaching generally requires a college education, which implies the opportunity to pick a different major and then start a different career.
I knew a woman from a poor background who was the first person in her family to go to college. She chose a major in English and a minor in Women’s Studies. I’m not saying that English majors can never get well-paying jobs, but I come from a “you can pick any career you want - doctor or lawyer” background so I was very surprised by her decision. Why would a person who didn’t have any money pick to study something that isn’t great for earning money? But she wasn’t stupid - she really liked English literature… Maybe she ended up working as a teacher.
I mean even from a pure market-based perspective, there is currently a teacher shortage and class sizes are too big, therefore we should pay teachers more to move up the supply curve. But also labor is not a textbook supply-demand curve anyways and is inelastic.
Because we force people to decide their life’s career track at age 17, before the brain is finished developing and you don’t know shit about self-sufficiency and careers and money.
A lot of people tend to want to study things they’re interested in, even if it doesn’t lead to a high paying job. You said yourself she was interested in English literature so that’s why she went with that as her major. It’s also a lot easier to learn and study something you actually care about than something you find boring or are just doing it to get paid. Like if I went to college, I’d find film studies classes or possibly some math ones way more for me cause I like that stuff, but if you tried to force me to take classes to become a doctor, lawyer, or trade school I’d flunk out hard and/or struggle to even get a passing grade.
go buy bread and sanitizing wipes with satisfaction
Like, y’all, i’m maximally confused.
How do i even put this …
What even is a good life according to you? Is it one in which you constantly work and that defines your self-worth?