According to the American Dream, anybody in the United States can achieve anything and become anything that they set their mind to. We are taught that the only limits on our success are our work ethic and our skills.

But is this actually true?

For instance, let's assume some miracle has happened and now all of the sudden public education in the United States is just absolutely wonderful. The drop out rate drops to under 10% and number of students going on to Post-Secondary education skyrockets to over 85%. (These are random numbers, and the specific numbers actually don't matter) What would all of these newly qualified employees do? Would we have a country composed of entirely professional people? Would we simply no longer employ janitors, plumbers, and dishwashers?

Yeah, I kind of doubt it too.

The fact of the matter is that for our society to function we must fill jobs simply because they need done. Take for example a neurosurgeon. He gets paid let's say $150,000 a year, (again, random number, but I'm confident that it's not all together unreasonable) and on face this seems reasonable. He preforms a very difficult task that is essential to society.

However, let's look at a janitor, a plumber, and a factory worker. They each make $40,000 a year (depending on what part of the country they're in, this is probably pretty high) Now, again, on face this seems reasonable because they are preforming an unimportant task that is easy to do. In short, the law of supply and demand in the labor market has rendered those laborers to not be worth very much.

However, let's look at all together. The neurosurgeon wouldn't be able to perform surgey if he didn't have access to all of the systems that the plumber put in, he would be able to cut open a patient without the scalpel that the factory worker made, and his job would be completely pointless due to the sheer number of bacterial infections that would be running around if the janitor wasn't doing his part to keep everything all nice and sterile.

So why does the neurosurgeon get paid so much more?

It's true that the surgeon is better educated, and that not everyone can be a surgeon. It's also true that pretty much anyone could be a factory worker, a plumber, or a janitor; however, should this factor into the wages that all such workers are paid?

Remember, when you hire a worker, you're not purchasing the laborer, you're purchasing the labor, so, therefore, the price attached to the labor should be held independently of the laborer themself. Furthermore, just because a task is menial and unskilled, doesn't mean that it is unimportant, so why do we treat it as such?

Furthermore, it's ironic that a capitalist system often offers the highest rewards to the least necessary people. Could we live without computers? It would be a major step backward, but we could, we did for hundreds of years. Could we live without neurosurgeons, and other highly specialized medical personnel? Yep, our life expanctancy would drop slightly, but on the whole the impact wouldn't be drastic. Could we live without garbage men? Nope, they do more for our health every month than most surgeons will do in a lifetime. Could we live without plumbers? Our cities wouldn't be able to function in the same manner, and our soceity would be completely different. Could we function without factory workers? Sure, if you were willing to accept a pre-industrial revolution standard of living.

Now what does this all mean? In our society, we need certain amounts of people to fill certain jobs, no matter what. Not everyone can be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a corporate accountant. Society wouldn't be able to function if that happened. We force a certain number of people into menial labor, menial labor that is necessary for our functioning as a society, and then say that since it's easy they aren't entitled to an equitable wage. Why? Why should the people that actually do all of the work, the people that actually make society function, get the fewest rewards?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Why? It can't get much more simple than the supply and demand mechanism you mentioned yourself.

I have always considered the American dream to be anyone has the oppertunity to do what the want, if the work hard enough for it. Everyone forgets that part.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Simple isn't the problem. Fairness is the problem. The supply and demand doesn't apply to the actual labor being preformed, it's applied to the laborer themselves. For instance, a plumber will have some wiggle room in his price based on supply and demand, but since it is easy to be a plumber (relatively speaking) he will never make as much as a neurosurgeon or an accountant, even though the work he does is much more important. Why is this? Why should we tolerate this?

Like I said, though, there are some functions in society that always need to be fullfilled. So no matter how hard you work, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will actually be able to be what you want to be. For instance, if you work at a factory as grunt labor, no matter how hard you work you will never become management if there is no room for you on the managament level. Just take that and apply it to a larger scale.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Well what you are talking about is turning upside down the entire capitalist system. Frankly I believe that because the surgeon went to school longer he should get paid more. Nothing ever guaranteed economic prosperity for everyone. We guarantee equal economic oppertunity, but not equal economic status.

You said that we should hold the laborer apart from the labor, but the laborer is needed to do the labor, thus it is his labor. It is like saying we should not judge the artist by his art.

When we pay the surgeon $150,000 (really low by the way) we are paying him for the time he put into school, for the fact that he holds peoples lives in his hands when he does surgery, and for the fact that there are less surgeons than plumbers. The plumber cannot say I spent 12 years in graduate school learning to be what I am and if i quite no one else can do my job.

The supply and demand theory works for people to. plumbers and factory workers get paid less because there are more of them. You are right we could not live without plumbers, but if a city fires its plumbers it can always find new ones. If you fire your surgeon It is a lot harder to find a new one. The same goes for factory workers. I live in Michigan and UAW workers are finding out the truth about capitalism.

In and ideal world yes the people doing the menial work should get paid more. Unfortunately the factory owner can always fire his workers and get new ones if they complain about there job too much, that is why they get paid less. Not because there jobs are easy, but because they are replaceable

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

True, it's pretty much a rejection of modern capitalism, but not a total one. The capitalism that I'm talking about would still function in the same basic way, but it would treat labor in a totally different way.

You say that people have equal opportunity, but this assumes the existence of an absolute free will. The problem with this is that people are defined by their surroundings. For instance, a kid who is brought up in a situation that doesn't value education, and is constantly socialized to not value education isn't going to be able to choose to be educated. There are stories of kids who choose education over the ghetto, but these kids all had some inspiration, some socialization that taught them to value education, which allowed them to make that choice. In short, the way that you are socialized limits the range of your free will by limiting the number of choices that you are aware of being capable of making.

I realize that no one gaurentees equal economic status, but I guess that would be a difference of what is and what should be.

As far as holding the laborer apart from the labor. My arguement is that we should reward the labor on it's own merits. We should reward people for doing essential tasks. The fact that the laborer is easy to replace has no bearing on the value of the labor itself. By argueing that the Laborer is devalued simply because his job is easy to do is really just an arguement stating that exploitation of the working class is justified because it's possible. Society paying some one less because they are dispensible is exploitation, plain and simple. We need the labor of these people, and to say that it's not worth as much as other labor, when, as I pointed out in the OP, it is actually worth more, is exploitation. Why should this be tolerated?

I'm going to contradict myself slightly by saying that I agree with you that we need to pay skilled labor more than unskilled labor, because we need to provide incentive for people to persue the more difficult/stressful careers like being a surgeon. However, the levels of the income disparity that we see in our society today are simply rediculous. For instance, the CEO of Levi-Strauss & Co (Philip Marineau) makes $24.9million a year, that's approximately $12,000 an hour. This man could pay for the entirety of my college education (roughly $120,000) in less than two days of work. Does he really do that much work? No, he couldn't possibly even come close if he were the most productive man alive. This means that he is getting paid for the work that others are doing. Again, this is exploitation. I'm sure his job is very stressful and it took a lot of hardwork and he probably had to go through a lot of shit to get where he is, but does he deserve this much of reward? No. Assuming that a livable wage in a given area is $40,000 a year, what would be wrong with paying a surgeon $50,000 a year, or even $75,000 a year? Why should society tolerate paying these people an income so totally out of proportion with their contribution to society?

Yeah, supply and demand applies to laborers, but should it? This goes back to the OP and the theory of functionalism. Supply and Demand are going to dictate what jobs you are going to be able to get. If you want to be a surgeon, but the only jobs to be had are unskilled labor, regardless of your level of education, your need to eat will force you to become an unskilled laborer. People don't have absolute choice when choosing their profession, so why should we punish those that get stick with shitty jobs, when it's not entirely their fault? Not to mention, why should we make them live either on or below the poverty line, when they are there because of we've created a society that depends on them being there. In short, why do we premit supply and demand to apply to laborers? The economy isn't a force in and of itself, it is capable of change. Just saying that it is a certain way shouldn't be an excuse for inaction when "the way it is" is unjust.

If we can agree that in an ideal world the menial worker should get paid more, why should we not strive to bring this world closer to the ideal? Why should we be complacent when we can both look at a situation and realize that this is not the way it should be?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

If a plumber and a neurosurgeon made the same amount of money, there would be no neurosurgeons, since it is much easier to be a plumber. Allowing the market demand for labor requiring various skill levels to dictate pay prevents people from avoiding difficult jobs.

Also, let's say that you raised the pay of a janitor to be $100,000 per year. Well, since pretty much anyone is qualified to be a janitor, the applicant pool for that position would absolutely explode, and then hiring for it would become filled with nepotism and favoritism (if Uncle CEO has a burnout nephew, he certainly gets the job). Furthermore, you would see "black market" janitor offerings spring up. "Hey buddy, I'll clean your office off the books for only $80,000 a year!" Eventually, the huge labor pool available and demand for the job would drive the wage right back down to where it was.

The highest paying jobs are the ones that few are qualified to do. The only way to implement a system to the contrary in our society would be to abolish capitalism. We haven't had very good luck with that.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Good point. However, let's say that insteado of rasing the janitor from $40,000 a year to to $100,000 a year, we lower the neurogsurgeon from $150,000+ a year to, say $75,000 year. This would leave the economic incentive intact. Not to mention, many people would go for more skilled jobs regardless of economic incentive, but simply because they are more fulfilling jobs.

I think the same arguement could also be used against your blackmarket labor pool paragraph as well.

Not really. Capitalism is more than just the labor market. There would still be competition in the market place, just the way we determine what certain jobs should be paid would be based more on the value of those jobs to society, instead of the supply and demand system that we are using today.

I was hoping you would weight in on this, DrGoodTrips, I always enjoy reading your view of things.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

I will agree with you that some CEO's get paid redicoulous amounts that really have no foot in reality.

It would be great if labor was rewarded on it on basis and that the work was not devalued because there are more labors, but there will always be someone who is willing to do the job for less pay. We are finding that out in michigan right now. Delphi was paying its workers $27/hour, and it was driving the company bankrupt, so delphi got rid of the contract and is now paying $11/hour. The union said no one would do the work for that little, but when delphi said it was taking applications for 500 jobs 11,000 people showed up. As long as there is someone else without a job they will do it for less pay.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

But it doesn't. The time given here to become a surgeon is 12 yrs. I chose Not to ignore the fact that it does take some time to become a good plumber, even tho doing so weakens my position. (I guessed at four years.) Using your salaries, the surgeon has greater lifetime income after year 22. (10 yrs as a practicing surgeon.) This also ignores the time-cost of money - Would you rather have 30% more money 30 yrs from now (assuming you're still alive and healthy to enjoy it, and notably not only well after you've past your prime in the mate-market, but probably after your kids have grown up with all the benefits of a lower income) or almost 400% more 13 yrs from now (since any earlier measurement notably yields infinity)? This also ignores the fact that the surgeon would probably be in a higher tax bracket, which would push the break-even point out at least another year. Sure, surgery is a great retirement plan, who plans their life around retirement starting from the age of 15?

You'll have to be more specific, as I don't see how Any arguement can be used against the black market labor pool example.

How would this competition work? A school janitor would get paid more than an office janitor? What if the office is a charity or other non-profit? Would all charities/non-profits be forced to over-spend the same amount on their basic labor services? Would an incompetent doctor working in DC then get paid more than a good doctor anywhere? Or is there some other mechanism (perhaps some non-arbitrary one?) I'm missing here?

(Tho I'll easily agree that many execs, especially CEOs, are quite overpaid.)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

It's hard to blame corporations for trying to save money at the expense of the employees. It's unethical, but it's understandable that they would try. My question would then be, why do we let them get away with it? There is always boycotting, being willing to eat the slighly higher cost of business ethics. The answer will lie on the consumers, not the company, in my opinion.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

I will probably reply at length later on, but for the moment, the principal point I'd raise here is that labour is paid on the basis of what it costs to replace it. That's the real nature of wages (I am an employer and this is a fact).

The rate of pay has nothing to do with the value, difficulty or education required of the labour performed. Only replacement value of that labour is considered.

Thus, Janitors are low paid because they can be replaced very easily, often at a lower wage rate (since it is mostly low-skilled labour).

Neurosurgeons are highly paid because it is very difficult to replace them - and impossible to replace them at a lower wage rate.

Just for the sake of helping me keep my thoughts straight (I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep in as many days ) I'm going to try to answer your arguements in a point by point outline Arguement-Rebuttal form. If I forget something, just let me know and I'll update it.

I. The Time-Cost Arguement:
A: My example doesn't offer enough of a reward for the surgeon quick enough.

R: Change the numbers. It was just an example. Not to mention, most people are going to stay in a career for an extended period of time, so the fact that it will take some time to pay off really isn't that big of a deal. Especially if we lowered the cost of education, this wouldn't be a huge deterrent for would-be neurosurgeons.

II. The 30% in 30 years vs. 400% in 13 years example:
A: By limiting their earning potential, this isn't fair to the neurosurgeons since it takes so long for their career choice to pay off (Am I understanding this arguement correctly?)

R: Assuming I understand you correctly:There is a couple of flaws in your math. 1. Neurosurgeon kids wouldn't have grown up under a lower income, nothing in anything we've been discussing would cause a shift in income, just net lifetime income, so this comparison doesn't really stand. As far as earning 400%, I'm sure anyone would rather do this, however, they have no right to earn that much, as is the whole point of the OP. For them to earn that much, which is out of proportion to their contribution, they are denying another worker just compensation for their contribution. This, in my opinion, is exploitation and shouldn't be protected.

III. Tax Brackets:
A. The fact that the surgeons are in a higher tax bracket would further diminish their earning power, which would already be unfairly low.

R. If the overall income disparity was limited to a range of $40,000-$80,000 a year, the graduated income tax would probably either disappear or would be greatly reduced. In the current system this is a valid point, but I, in this little "Ideal World", it probably wouldn't be much of an issue.

I hope that covers it.

By lowering the upper end of the income scale as opposed to significantly rising the lower end (although that would probably have to happen, too), we will limit the black market labor pool to the levels that it is at today. I know that black marget labor is a huge problem in some parts of the country, particularly the Southwest, but this is really more an illegal immigration/immigration law enforcement problem than an economic one. If we enforced the laws on the books, this sort of activity would be kept to a minimum.

By maintaining competition in the market place in meant that consumers would still have a choice of products so companies would still have to compete for market share, thus making it a capitalistic system. This was directed at the comments that said that what I was talking about was the overthrough of capitalism.

As far as overspending for the same basic labor services, I don't think there would be a huge increase in the cost of these services. There would be some, but the main change would be lowering the upper end, at first anyway. Ultimately, it would sort of balance out in the middle, not completely level, but much more so than it is today. Yes, charities would have to pay a livable wage for the basic services that they couldn't get donated, but seeing as most non-profits and charities get most of this kind of work as volunteer or donations anyway, I don't think it would be that big a of a deal.

Yeah, it just gets completely rediculous in some companies...

Thanks for taking the time to think out such a good answer. I'm really interested in this kind of topic and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss it at a non-idiotic level!

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

No. One hires labourers to perform a task (or purchases labour if you like). The price of that labour is the price the market determines to be the replacement cost of that labour (as I noted above).

In a pure abstract consideration, that work is indeed valued as it is paid for. It is only 'unvalued' by comparison with other forms of labour. In itself, it is certainly valued - albeit, lowly.

Or, because just about anyone on the planet can do those things as well as the next person - thus, the 'trade' value of menial labour is comparatively low (a generally high demand yes, but an extremely large supply for this type of labour, thus a low price by the law of supply and demand).

And given that human beings have a very strong tendency to judge/treat other human beings based on their compartive level of social status, one's low-paying job is a very easy (and rational) way to assess social status level.

(Please note that I'm skipping over a bunch of stuff here about the human need for limiting social relations when living in very large social groups - necessitating the 'rationing' one's level of attention towards various other 'classes' of human beings, thus the rational assessments according to social stutus and material self-interest).

Perhaps because the apparently least necessary things are usually the most desired ones - or the rarest talents.

Indeed. 1% Feudal lords and 99% servile peasants? No thank you.

Not true. The high cost of doctors & medical equipment tends to encourage the development of parametics, thus expanding the job pool. The high cost of lawyers encourages the development of paralegals. The high cost of accountants encourages the development of accounting software - which encourages the development of computer programmers.

Speaking of which, for example, if too many architects are produced by society (as is the case in N.America for the last 25 years) - this is not a serious problem for society. Indeed, many of those young aspiring architects went into landscape architecture and/or interior design upon graduation since they couldn't get decent 'architect-career-track jobs'. As a result, they produced creative/commercial 'rennaissance' in those fields, leading to increasing demand and thus increasing profits and thus increasing wages in those particular fields - with the top jobs often dominated by those trained as architects.

Society is made up of individuals and individuals are fluid as a group. Thus, there is no certain level or optimal proportion for anything. It just is what it is - and it can change tomorrow - in either direction, depending upon circumstance.

I beg to differ.

Being a cook or a chef is a decently paid occupation, yet just about everyone (or a very large proportion of the population) is trained to cook. Likewise with being a 'writer' when just about everyone is trained to write.

Indeed, we train everyone to do basic arithmetic, yet companies still make a profit selling simple hand-held calculators that do nothing more.

That is to say, I don't see how everyone sharing any given level of training in any given function precludes the operation of our civil society or any potential economic activity.

No one is ultimately forced. If you object to doing menial wage labour, make yourself profitably capable of doing something else, or run away to the wilderness and make your own living off the land. Or do menial labour. The choice is always yours. The easiest choice is to do menial labour.

Indeed, the option of 'entrepreneur' is always available to anyone in any western 'capitalist' country. No need here for doing menial-wage labour, though it isn't always easy.

Why is this? Still very simply supply and demand of labor. If you had but a single plumper in Seattle, he'd be one heck of a power institution.
Why should we tolerate it? Who said you should. Knock yourself out trying to change it.