Hospital janitors are worth more to society than bankers

[Ausm]

Interesting study here and I have to agree with the results.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SmartSpending/blog/page.aspx?post=1454130&ocid=fbmsnmon

 

[Munky]

I'm of the same mindset that modern societies' values are reversed. Professions like construction workers and mechanics create real, tangible value, and yet get compensated a lot less than the fluffy professions like bankers, lawyers, and entertainment execs.

If there was ever an apocalypse/doomsday worldwide incident, and survival became a higher priority than greed, all these money-shuffling professions would most likely be worthless.

 

[I Saw OJ]

 

[Craig234]

I've been an advocate of high pay for janitors for a long time on the 'thank them for doing what I don't want to' fairness reason.

Many people use the excuse that people make more because they deserve to by creating more, but that really doesn't hold up real well on scrutiny, in that it's only one of a number of factors.

Tiger Woods (this has nothing to do with his controversy) makes over $100 milllion a year, but in any common sense view, a basic fairness view, that has a lot more to do with it just so happening to be something related to what millions enjoy, and useful to Nike and other sponsors for selling products, than any real 'fairness'.

Of course, agreeing with that doesn't mean there's any clear 'fix' for it, other than the graduated income tax shifting more of the burden on his last $90 million or so, and off the janitor.

 

[brxndxn]

I gotta disagree with the tax accountants' value for society in the study. Every pound not paid in taxes is a pound that can be spent in society. Government is not the only thing that creates infrastructure..

Though, I would definitely agree that bankers enjoy more of a cut than they should.. and most contributing jobs do not pay well enough.

 

[StageLeft]

I think they are worth more than the bankers who are balls-deep into Obama.

Anyway, this study is merely one way to skin the cat. It's just a joke more than anything and quite difficult to quantify worth in the way it thinks it is doing it.

For example:

Child care workers generate between 7 pounds and 9.5 pounds for every pound they are paid

using this measure a crappy day care worker is worth more than a good one because if she is paid less (and she's paid less because she sucks or her daycare center is a hellhole) but the parent makes the same as a parent who sends their kid to an expensive one, this study would indicate that she is more of a value to the society than the good, higher-paid daycare worker.

 

[Hacp]

I've been an advocate of high pay for janitors for a long time on the 'thank them for doing what I don't want to' fairness reason.

Many people use the excuse that people make more because they deserve to by creating more, but that really doesn't hold up real well on scrutiny, in that it's only one of a number of factors.

Tiger Woods (this has nothing to do with his controversy) makes over $100 milllion a year, but in any common sense view, a basic fairness view, that has a lot more to do with it just so happening to be something related to what millions enjoy, and useful to Nike and other sponsors for selling products, than any real 'fairness'.

Of course, agreeing with that doesn't mean there's any clear 'fix' for it, other than the graduated income tax shifting more of the burden on his last $90 million or so, and off the janitor.

High pay for janitors? Are you kidding? The more janitors cost, the more companies will outsource jobs to developing nations like China and India.

 

[TruePaige]

Great comment from the MSN Page about how this study is far from scientific. The Tax Accountant part was complete crap, by the way. Apparently helping the working man keep a little more for himself is the "most vile and evil profession in America".

Hey, Teresa Mears - Did you actually read the "study" from the

"neweconomics.org". I did, and it's not really a study, more like a few opinions supported by a few extra evil data points.

Not scientific at all. So, I sent those folks an e-mail:



Dear people,



I don't know who of you came up with the part about the tax accountants in your recent article, but I think all of you could gain some perspective.



I understand your mindset, and I understand that you want to point something out by specifically emphasizing the negative aspects of a given profession.



However, after downloading and reading the article, I could not find a single balanced

review of tax accountants as a group. Nor could I find any reasonable calculation that shows the actual math behind your assumptions.



I know that, yes indeed, there are tax accountants who play the tax avoidance game for the so-called rich, etc. But for every one of those, there are hundreds who prepare tax returns for the average person, for people who make do with small businesses, for people who don't know how to fill out a form, for people who are old, disabled, ill, and living on $40,000 or less per year.

These tax accountants are not well paid, and they don't have a benefits package, because they are self-employed. The reason they are not well paid is that their clients are not well off either. The work is hard, requires knowledge of language, math, law, reason, balance, estimation, court procedures, an ability to communicate with a variety of people in one-on-one interviews, a willingness to find and deal with inconvenient truths (as in "Here is why you owe this tax"), and more.



And while it appears an easy mark to shoot at the few that are doing the "big wig stuff", your article makes all of us look like "evil smeagel"-like mongrels blindly serving money crazed goons.



May be you can see what I am getting at. If not, then you should rename your organization to "super-opinionated-guessonomics.org". And instead of a "think and do tank",

may it's more like an "opinion-tank". Or, in a more old-fashioned way "An essay tank'.



Really, it is not a "study" when all you do is to search for a few "data points" that happen to confirm your preconceived notions.



So, catch that and paint it green!



Happy Holidays!

 

[SirStev0]

I was going to post a pic of the janitor angry and put something along the lines of "I think there was some bias injected into the study in the form of intimidation"

 

[Genx87]

Uh huh because I am sure if we were all janitors companies would erect themselves to employ us out of thin air.

 

[ScottyB]

I've been an advocate of high pay for janitors for a long time on the 'thank them for doing what I don't want to' fairness reason.

Many people use the excuse that people make more because they deserve to by creating more, but that really doesn't hold up real well on scrutiny, in that it's only one of a number of factors.

Tiger Woods (this has nothing to do with his controversy) makes over $100 milllion a year, but in any common sense view, a basic fairness view, that has a lot more to do with it just so happening to be something related to what millions enjoy, and useful to Nike and other sponsors for selling products, than any real 'fairness'.

Of course, agreeing with that doesn't mean there's any clear 'fix' for it, other than the graduated income tax shifting more of the burden on his last $90 million or so, and off the janitor.

A lot more people can be janitors than bankers. That is why they are paid less.

 

[Craig234]

High pay for janitors? Are you kidding? The more janitors cost, the more companies will outsource jobs to developing nations like China and India.

I'm not sure you know what outsourcing is. Outsourcing can be done for things like software and manufacturing, to the people who are out of the country. Not janitors.

 

[Craig234]

A lot more people can be janitors than bankers. That is why they are paid less.

That's only part of the reason. Who has the power and money is another, but your comment, partially correct, doesn't change what I said about what's fair.

 

[Patranus]

That's only part of the reason. Who has the power and money is another, but your comment, partially correct, doesn't change what I said about what's fair.

How is it not 'fair'?
Resources that are scarce are worth more than resources that are abundant.

 

[Hacp]

I'm not sure you know what outsourcing is. Outsourcing can be done for things like software and manufacturing, to the people who are out of the country. Not janitors.

I know exactly what outsourcing is. If you need to pay the janitors 70k a year to clean your factor, you'd be better off moving the factory to china.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I'm not sure you know what outsourcing is. Outsourcing can be done for things like software and manufacturing, to the people who are out of the country. Not janitors.

The day they perfect teleportation technology is the day they will start "outsourcing" janitor work.

 

[irwincur]

Have people forgotten simple economics. Supply and demand drive price (or in this case wages). People with relatively rare specialties can name their own price compared to someone who say, mops the floor all day - anyone can do that.

But, I am not surprised that simple economics are out of fashion right now, you know, with an all out assault on capitalism in favor of some already failed rehashed global socialist dream state.

 

[Craig234]

I know exactly what outsourcing is. If you need to pay the janitors 70k a year to clean your factor, you'd be better off moving the factory to china.

I didn't realize you were suggesting the companies will relocate. The costs of the janitorial staff, even at 70k,, are such a tiny sliver of the operating costs, that's ridiculous. You admit you know nothing on this?

 

[TruePaige]

The day they perfect teleportation technology is the day they will start "outsourcing" janitor work.

What Hacp meant was that if you keep jobs in this country, for many professions those people need a place to work.

To keep that workplace from becoming a derelict shit hole you need someone to clean it.

Ergo, outsource the employees you outsource the janitors.

 

[yllus]

I'm of the same mindset that modern societies' values are reversed. Professions like construction workers and mechanics create real, tangible value, and yet get compensated a lot less than the fluffy professions like bankers, lawyers, and entertainment execs.

If there was ever an apocalypse/doomsday worldwide incident, and survival became a higher priority than greed, all these money-shuffling professions would most likely be worthless.

Why are professions that produce things of "real, tangible value" superior? And out of curiousity, do software developers fall into the tangible or intangible class of output? Telling the proles from the bourgeoisie is so difficult these days.

 

[TruePaige]

Why are professions that produce things of "real, tangible value" superior? And out of curiousity, do software developers fall into the tangible or intangible class of output? Telling the proles from the bourgeoisie is so difficult these days.

Sig worthy material, yllus.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I gotta disagree with the tax accountants' value for society in the study. Every pound not paid in taxes is a pound that can be spent in society. Government is not the only thing that creates infrastructure.

Yea, I kind of agree with the article that payment is skewed for lower end jobs, but I think the reasoning they use to get there is all off the wall.

 

[Hacp]

I didn't realize you were suggesting the companies will relocate. The costs of the janitorial staff, even at 70k,, are such a tiny sliver of the operating costs, that's ridiculous. You admit you know nothing on this?

And you realize how much cheaper everything will cost if they move right? Why give them another reason?

 

[Genx87]

I didn't realize you were suggesting the companies will relocate. The costs of the janitorial staff, even at 70k,, are such a tiny sliver of the operating costs, that's ridiculous. You admit you know nothing on this?

If you are paying janitors 70K, then everybody else is higher.

You are looking this from a raw physical perspective. Look at it from a wealth creation and value standpoint. A janitor pushing a a mop creates how much wealth or value to the company? I'd say little wealth but some value in that he\she keeps the place clean. Is that 70K worth of value? I guess it depends on what the private company thinks. I'd venture a guess not many would think a janitor creates or has 70K worth of value.

 

[Ns1]

Have people forgotten simple economics. Supply and demand drive price (or in this case wages). People with relatively rare specialties can name their own price compared to someone who say, mops the floor all day - anyone can do that.

But, I am not surprised that simple economics are out of fashion right now, you know, with an all out assault on capitalism in favor of some already failed rehashed global socialist dream state.

this



Besides, everyone talks hate on bankers and shit and yet they all devote 5%+ company match into their 401k's and roth IRA's. Who do you think manages all that? Janitors?