I think the health care workers, at least those at the hospital level,
are being treated pretty well financially. They have "tough" working
conditions too (12-hour+ shifts, as the norm, in a tough environment).
Some are but there are many behind the scenes that you don't see and now
that the government is involved the waste of money cut short what could
be paid to workers. It is ridiculous that you have to hire staff to
simply collect what the government owes.
You think? Does your contribution to society for being in the movie
make you worth a salary of $50,000,000? This is our society but on this
path no one will be able to afford to go to the movies.
I understand how we think this way and I understand why we are in the
shape we are in. We put too much value in things that make us happy
today but not for all of the tomorrows.
So now we have to "contribution to society" in order to be paid well?
If that's the yardstick then very few people on earth should be paid well.
If I build a mousetrap that 500 million want to buy, do I not deserve
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
Noooooooo! The more our products or services contribute to society the
more deserving we are of the high pay. If you work to do something that
greatly benefits society as you would work playing a game. Which would
you pick as the job that deserves the better pay.
I don't really determine a persons worth by how much money he makes. I
just believe that if you are providing a product or service that
benefits one or many people, what you charge is of more value than a
person that simply entertains. Value for money spent is more important.
Is entertainment important, absolutely but IMHO not a necessity.
Here is how I am looking at it.
You work 3 years to build mouse traps that nets you a profit of
25 million. Your product helps countless people with an actual need to
rid their home of vermin.
You act in a movie that takes 3 years to film. You net a profit of
10 million. The movie you act is a box office hit for 6 weeks.
You put in the exact amount of time and work for both the mouse traps
and the entertainment. BUT you earn 10 million more making the traps.
Which of the two jobs would you say benefited society the most therefore
being the most deserved?
Now I am not saying that you don't deserve what you get with either
pick, using our society's way of thinking and beliefs.
A year from now while the traps are still in use and the movie is all
but forgotten which would job would make you feel the best about what
you have done?
"IMHO" if you sell your customers a product that benefits them for more
than a few hours, dollar for dollar, you are more deserving of what you
And again I don't condemn any one for making as much money as they can
by doing what they want to do. This is how we have been conditioned to
think in our society. You get all you can get while the getting is
good, you are entitled. And "IMHO" that is the problem.
That's a pretty good summary. The problem lies in the "want to do"
part. I've known a lot of computer programmers who hate what they do but
got into it because it paid well. And since there are so few good ones
to go around, they get away with it.
As an aside, I started in the late '50s. Companies were trying to devise
tests to find people they could train to do programming.Never did get a
really good test, but the best they came up with was 3 questions:
1. Do you like to do crossword puzzles?
2. Do you like to take tests?
3. Do you like to do jigsaw puzzles?
If you said no to all 3, they showed you the door. If you said yes to
all 3 they offered you the corner office :-). It did weed out the ones
who were hopeless, but wasn't as good at finding only the excellent
ones. A lot of mediocre to just adequate passed the test.
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:28:15 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
In the late '70s and early '80s, IBM was retraining every technician
and secretary to become a programmer. The training was pretty intense
and there was no guarantee of a job if you failed the course but they
got a *lot* of programmers out of the deal.
Substitute anything that doesn't have any moral value to you for
mousetrap in my example. Candy bar. Software app. Breast implant.
Bald Eagle trap. :-)
You're putting your own moral value on services or things and saying
some deserve more than others. You can't have that in a free market.
You only get that in a utopia or socialism. And with socialism, you
better hope whoever is setting that moral compass lines up with your
ethics or you might be really screwed. :-)
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
On 3/22/2015 9:17 PM, email@example.com wrote:
And that is exactly what I am saying. I don't want anyone making
decisions for me but I think it would be better if we had better
education so that we could make better decisions. As it is our economy
and government spending is NOT good. If the population put more
emphasis on education most everything would be better. Unfortunately
our culture puts more value/recognition/hero status on things that are
less important than other things.
Right now we are in an "ignorance is bliss" scenario.
On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 9:38:12 PM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
We may not be signing the check for the salary, but in many cases we signed
the check for the publicly funded stadium. I wonder what the salaries (and
/or ticket prices) would look like if the owners had to pay for their own p
Here is a summary of the book Field of Schemes, stolen w/o permission from:
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
"Field of Schemes is a play-by-play account of how the drive for new sports
stadiums and arenas drains $2 billion a year from public treasuries for th
e sake of private profit. While the millionaires who own sports franchises
have seen the value of their assets soar under this scheme, taxpayers, urba
n residents, and sports fans have all come out losers, forced to pay both h
igher taxes and higher ticket prices for seats that, thanks to the layers o
f luxury seating that typify new stadiums, usually offer a worse view of th
True, fans do not have to go to the games...it's their choice to pay the hi
gher prices. I spoke with my wallet many years ago and relinquished my seas
on tickets to an NFL team when the price got out of hand. I'm not sure that
We should also keep in mind the huge tax breaks that the leagues receive. A
s many of you know, the NFL is a 501(c)(6) organization (read: non-profit).
Not the teams themselves, but the league.
Yes, I know that there are "offsets" to the tax breaks in increased revenue
s from all the different businesses that make money when there's a game in
town and that successful businesses contribute to the overall well being of
an area. Still, I'll bet that the owners (and the leagues) make out better
than the public when all the numbers are in.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.