Are most people paid equitably for the amount of value they generate in the economy?

[Nebor]

For what, and from whom?

For having more information quicker than everyone else. They collect it from everyone. In theory they provide liquidity, but that claim is dubious for most of the highest earning firms in the financial sector.

 

[Zaap]

I'm not sure how you would determine what someone "deserves" to make, or what the value of their contribution to the economy is. However, keep in mind that what someone gets paid has nothing to do with the value of their contribution to the economy, and everything to do with supply and demand for their particular skill set.

No matter how much value I add (as for example, a good teacher would), if there are millions of others who are willing/able to do the same thing (or at least close enough to satisfy their employers), I'm not going to get paid a whole lot. Conversely, even a lousy pitcher in baseball makes tens of millions of dollars. Not because they contribute a whole lot to society, but because of the relative scarcity of people who can get batters out at the major league baseball level.

THIS.

Value added to the economy and society often times has shit-all to do with what people are paid. Honestly, the world could live without some barely literate imbecile tossing a ball around or nursery-rhyming into a microphone making gazillions, but society would literally screech to a halt if someone wasn't keeping the sewer system from backing up with shit, or collecting everyone's trash, or you name it.

And it's not just cigar-chomping filthy rich fatcats making the determination that value to society and income have little to do with each other. I've seen plenty of 'poor' going out of their way to give a payday to some barely literate imbecile who tosses a ball around or nursery-rhymes into a microphone, by eating up every bit of merchandise they can get their hands on, groveling at their idols' feet, and begging for their chance to give them more.

The same people (and *REALLY, be honest, all of us) could give a shit (literally) about whatever poor slobs making the sewers work, let alone are we lining up to give those people our money.

 

[Moonbeam]

The male ego always feels underpaid.

 

[alcoholbob]

5 of the 10 counties with the highest median income are in the DC Metro Area, filled to the brim with Federal Contractors--Falls Church, Loudon County, Howard County, Fairfax and Arlington.

As Milton Friedman once said, government is responsible for half the spending in the economy but only generates 20 percent of the income, while the private sector spends the other half but generates 80 per cent of the income. Yet the highest median income areas are in Virginia and Maryland, the Washington elite.

 

[sandorski]

5 of the 10 counties with the highest median income are in the DC Metro Area, filled to the brim with Federal Contractors--Falls Church, Loudon County, Howard County, Fairfax and Arlington.

As Milton Friedman once said, government is responsible for half the spending in the economy but only generates 20 percent of the income, while the private sector spends the other half but generates 80 per cent of the income. Yet the highest median income areas are in Virginia and Maryland, the Washington elite.

Which are likely the Lobbyists.

 

[Karl Agathon]

The male ego always feels underpaid.

What about a Siberian Husky's ego?

 

[Double Trouble]

Define "equitable" and "deserve".....

 

[Smoblikat]

No, most people today are paid whatever they can get. Employers know they can hire someone half as skilled for half the cost, and still get the same end result.

 

[Mai72]

The president makes $400,000 a year, but the average wallstreet CEO makes millions.
There are many public sector jobs with incredible inbalance in pay. For example:

"Toll-Booth Attendant

Toll-booth attendants are reported to earn an average annual salary of $45,000 per year. This salary exceeds the national average, which is notable considering that this job is relatively low-skilled and requires no post-secondary education. It is also reported that the highest paid toll-booth operator salary in Maine in 2009 was $76,219, which is an impressive 85% more than the national average annual salary."

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0711/7-high-paid-public-service-jobs.aspx

So the answer is no.

True, but those jobs are in the process of being eliminated.

At lease in NJ we have implemented Easy Pass which has ended plenty of toll booth jobs.

 

[zephyrprime]

No. They are paid based upon supply and demand. Farmers are water utility workers produce the most value in the economy. I was pricing the cost of installing mini split air conditioning in my home recently and it was high as fuck. How much value it is such air conditioning? Not fricken much since I already have window air conditioners which are cheap as fuck. However, those guys are paid nearly 100x more than the illegal produce pickers of the world. Value provided provides only a loose determination of the pay someone receives. The primary determination is supply and demand.

 

[Fern]

I don't think the question can be answered 'correctly'.

"Value" is mostly subjective. Aside from a few things like cash and gold, we all value things differently. E.g., I see little to no real value in smart phones. But others value them greatly. It just seems to me, based on my personal observations, that they are mostly used to amuse people with rather frivolous activities during spare moments. I suppose some have real need of their features for productive purposes, but I haven't personally seen it.

I also see a micro versus macro aspect to your question. A person's value to their employer is a 'micro' type question and the value is perceived by the employer. A person's value to the economy (as a whole) is a macro type question and I think that would be very difficult to ascertain.

Fern

 

[Knowing]

I lean toward yes, with some fudge factor.

The bottom doesn't get paid what it's worth due to the minimum wage and that's probably okay barring a change in the minimum wage.

At the very top they get paid more than their economic value because they're a single point of focus. If an employee suggests a small change that improves productivity, a low level manager directs the rest of his or her employees to do the same. Other incredibly subtle micro changes throughout the enterprise result in large macro change. None of the employees know exactly what they've done to impact the company's bottom line but the board gives the credit to the CEO who captures the economic benefit.

Get your attaboys (attagirls) in writing. Even if your current employer won't reward you for your work, your next employer might.

 

[werepossum]

No. They are paid based upon supply and demand. Farmers are water utility workers produce the most value in the economy. I was pricing the cost of installing mini split air conditioning in my home recently and it was high as fuck. How much value it is such air conditioning? Not fricken much since I already have window air conditioners which are cheap as fuck. However, those guys are paid nearly 100x more than the illegal produce pickers of the world. Value provided provides only a loose determination of the pay someone receives. The primary determination is supply and demand.

But supply and demand determine one's value to the employer. If you are a lead burner and I need a lead burner, your value to me is great because lead burners are hard to find. If you are a leading heart surgeon and I need a lead burner, your value to me is low because I need a lead burner - but very high if I need a heart surgeon. If you can load boxes into a truck and I need someone to load boxes into a truck, your economic value to me is still very low - even though without that step I make zero money - because nearly anyone can load boxes into a truck. Ergo the value to society IS determined by the supply. The brunt of the OP's question is his desire to determine the value of each worker to society and enforce his will upon others in support of his valuation, because as Fern so cogently points out below, value is inherently variable between individuals. If everyone had the same valuation of smart phones as Fern, smart phone designer would be a poorly paid field indeed, even though the product, work, and skills and knowledge sets would be unchanged.

The sum of all our valuations, on the other hand, is exactly the value added to the economy and therefore society. Thus someone manufacturing pet rocks (which as originally conceived involved putting a small rock into a cardboard box with a booklet and a bit of straw) had significant economic value in November 1975 and near-zero economic value in November 1976 even though the work and the components were identical. The sum of valuations changed; therefore the value of that person's contribution to the economy changed and "pet rock assembly technician" became an extinct job classification. Hell, salt used to be used for currency and now it's dirt cheap - were someone to implement a dirt cheap method of making gold, gold too would be dirt cheap. Value is entirely subjective.

I don't think the question can be answered 'correctly'.

"Value" is mostly subjective. Aside from a few things like cash and gold, we all value things differently. E.g., I see little to no real value in smart phones. But others value them greatly. It just seems to me, based on my personal observations, that they are mostly used to amuse people with rather frivolous activities during spare moments. I suppose some have real need of their features for productive purposes, but I haven't personally seen it.

I also see a micro versus macro aspect to your question. A person's value to their employer is a 'micro' type question and the value is perceived by the employer. A person's value to the economy (as a whole) is a macro type question and I think that would be very difficult to ascertain.

Fern

QFT, and well said.

 

[brianmanahan]

someone's pay is the economic definition of the value that is placed on them, so i voted yes

 

[Bitek]

Sports? Don't make me vomit, how does playing a game justify someone for more pay over something like finding a cure for cancer, etc.

Is one of my major conundrums over my life.

Is similar to I can play a kids made up game better than anyone else, pay me big bucks.

Doesn't matter if you like it. At the end of the day millions of eyeballs line up to watch, and that brings billions in ad revenue/ promotional deals/ licensing/ etc etc. People come to see the teams that are good. To be good you need the best players, so the value of the best players is astronomical.

Just look at the arc of Payton Manning. Hard to argue the man isn't a money machine

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe it depends on when you're talking about.

If median workers got what they were worth in 1980, expressed as a % of national income, they obviously aren't today. If the top .1% got what they were worth back then, they're obviously grossly overpaid today, too.

It's not like people or the nature of work has changed much in the meanwhile.

It'll trickle down.

 

[MongGrel]

Doesn't matter if you like it. At the end of the day millions of eyeballs line up to watch, and that brings billions in ad revenue/ promotional deals/ licensing/ etc etc. People come to see the teams that are good. To be good you need the best players, so the value of the best players is astronomical.

Just look at the arc of Payton Manning. Hard to argue the man isn't a money machine

True, but I don't like it was my point to begin with.

 

[Bitek]

True, but I don't like it was my point to begin with.

Aye.