Do Higher-Incomes Work Harder than Lower-Incomes?

Gipper said:

That's because teachers are paid with self-actualization processes. A lot of teachers do what they do because they enjoy it. They get the praise, the pats on the back. What do I get? I'm not an accountant because I enjoy it. I don't expect a thumbs-up and an "atta boy". I don't "grow" as a person because I do books and taxation for people and businesses. Therefore, my work needs to be compensated through pure financial means.

Click to expand...

Or your talents could be put towards something worthy of praise, and then you could be paid in feeling good, too. Or maybe you don't actually think that feeling good is just compensation?

1234567890

I'd rather take the money. I do what I do because my natural talents lean me that way - comparative advantage and all. You wouldn't hire me to paint your house just as you wouldn't hire your housepainter to do your taxes.

My work is not going to change the world. I'll never get an old woman to hug me and bless me because I found her a deduction. Cut me a check and we're good.

Not every job has to be a personal growth quest. In fact, the vast majority are not. Selling my talents to the highest bidder is acceptable, and encouraged in this economic ideology...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Many people earn their "high" incomes because of the responsibility they assume thru their work.

In the 80s, my father, a great-lakes ship captain, earned >$600/day, not because of his effort x distance moved, but because he was directly responsible for the lives or ~35 people and tens of millions of dollars of equipment.

Because he didn't sweat, he should not have been paid so much?

Gipper said:

I'd rather take the money. I do what I do because my natural talents lean me that way - comparative advantage and all. You wouldn't hire me to paint your house just as you wouldn't hire your housepainter to do your taxes.

My work is not going to change the world. I'll never get an old woman to hug me and bless me because I found her a deduction. Cut me a check and we're good.



Not every job has to be a personal growth quest. In fact, the vast majority are not. Selling my talents to the highest bidder is acceptable, and encouraged in this economic ideology...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

My Uncle was a Senior partner in one of the Big 8 accounting firms in the world...when they had that distinction...the big 8 is now gone.
He had a masters from Columbia back when that was an achievement...today a masters is a nothing...your correct that college has been diluted down to almost the same stature as a getting a High school diploma in the 60s...its no biggy now, unless you have extended education in a field...a 4yr bs or ba isnt anything special at all....in 20 yrs or so when everyone has college...how they going to make any distinctions any more

We need a return to the way things were. The truth is that things are opposite now - back then, when degrees were scarce, you could waltz into a job in your field (specifically white-collar). Nowadays, I would honestly tell new high school grads not to go to college. Enter the workplace right now, especially in a high-demand field. Find something that you can work up to. Preferably something that offers a paid internship if possible, and do that full time.

Employers today are not the same as they once were. If two people walk into an office trying for the same job - one with a high school diploma and four years experience, and one with a bachelor's degree with no experience - the guy with 4 years working experience will get hired every single time out of the gate. Smart money these days go to those who graduate, get vocational experience, get a name for themselves in the working world, then perhaps go to school part-time on their own time while they continue to work - even if this means taking 6 or 7 years for a 4 year degree. They will be infinitely better off to climb the ladder than the wet-behind-the-ears college grad looking to cash in on an education most employers don't value, demanding a higher salary because they have 50 or 75 grand worth of loans to pay off.

It's a frustrating time we live in.

Gipper said:

We need a return to the way things were. The truth is that things are opposite now - back then, when degrees were scarce, you could waltz into a job in your field (specifically white-collar). Nowadays, I would honestly tell new high school grads not to go to college. Enter the workplace right now, especially in a high-demand field. Find something that you can work up to. Preferably something that offers a paid internship if possible, and do that full time.

Employers today are not the same as they once were. If two people walk into an office trying for the same job - one with a high school diploma and four years experience, and one with a bachelor's degree with no experience - the guy with 4 years working experience will get hired every single time out of the gate. Smart money these days go to those who graduate, get vocational experience, get a name for themselves in the working world, then perhaps go to school part-time on their own time while they continue to work - even if this means taking 6 or 7 years for a 4 year degree. They will be infinitely better off to climb the ladder than the wet-behind-the-ears college grad looking to cash in on an education most employers don't value, demanding a higher salary because they have 50 or 75 grand worth of loans to pay off.

It's a frustrating time we live in.

Click to expand...

It totally depends what kind of work you want to do and what sorts of aptitudes you have. If you want to work in a trade, absolutely I agree vocational experience > education. If you want to be an accountant or a lawyer or a doctor or a teacher or something, you absolutely won't even get out of the gates without the proper education. There are some types of skills that are better learned through experience and others that are better learned through an academic environment. If you're a carpenter you can jump right into it, make mistakes, learn from them and correct them. You can ask people you work with questions. You can start out doing the simpler work and only move your way up into the more demanding carpentry as you are ready for it. So for something like that, I agree that school is just stalling the time when you get started learning. But, if you're a doctor, you can't make mistakes. You need to hit the ground already ready enough that people will put their lives in your hands. If you're a lawyer you can't ask people questions, when somebody comes into your office or a judge says something, you need to know what that means right away off the cuff from day one. Then there are fields where you just would never be able to gain some of the types of knowledge as quickly in practical work. For example, an accountant may never run into a particular type of accounting problem for 20 years of work and then suddenly encounter it. Without a broad accounting education they might not even recognize that it is an issue.

So, I don't think it is possible to say either "college good" or "college bad". It all depends on what you want to do.

And there is something less tangible to the value of education. The brain is a muscle that grows with exercise. The truth is that most work doesn't really give it the exercise it needs to develop. And frankly the world is just a lot more interesting if you have more education. Just watching the news is a lot more enlightening if you understand basic macro economics for example and you'll never get that understanding working as a plumber.

Gipper said:

We need a return to the way things were. The truth is that things are opposite now - back then, when degrees were scarce, you could waltz into a job in your field (specifically white-collar). Nowadays, I would honestly tell new high school grads not to go to college. Enter the workplace right now, especially in a high-demand field. Find something that you can work up to. Preferably something that offers a paid internship if possible, and do that full time.

Employers today are not the same as they once were. If two people walk into an office trying for the same job - one with a high school diploma and four years experience, and one with a bachelor's degree with no experience - the guy with 4 years working experience will get hired every single time out of the gate. Smart money these days go to those who graduate, get vocational experience, get a name for themselves in the working world, then perhaps go to school part-time on their own time while they continue to work - even if this means taking 6 or 7 years for a 4 year degree. They will be infinitely better off to climb the ladder than the wet-behind-the-ears college grad looking to cash in on an education most employers don't value, demanding a higher salary because they have 50 or 75 grand worth of loans to pay off.

It's a frustrating time we live in.

Click to expand...

Its called change.
And its time that the youngsters started to use their heads and plan ahead.
This includes communicating.
Not doing this can be frustrating.

teamosil said:

It totally depends what kind of work you want to do and what sorts of aptitudes you have. If you want to work in a trade, absolutely I agree vocational experience > education. If you want to be an accountant or a lawyer or a doctor or a teacher or something, you absolutely won't even get out of the gates without the proper education. There are some types of skills that are better learned through experience and others that are better learned through an academic environment. If you're a carpenter you can jump right into it, make mistakes, learn from them and correct them. You can ask people you work with questions. You can start out doing the simpler work and only move your way up into the more demanding carpentry as you are ready for it. So for something like that, I agree that school is just stalling the time when you get started learning. But, if you're a doctor, you can't make mistakes. You need to hit the ground already ready enough that people will put their lives in your hands. If you're a lawyer you can't ask people questions, when somebody comes into your office or a judge says something, you need to know what that means right away off the cuff from day one. Then there are fields where you just would never be able to gain some of the types of knowledge as quickly in practical work. For example, an accountant may never run into a particular type of accounting problem for 20 years of work and then suddenly encounter it. Without a broad accounting education they might not even recognize that it is an issue.

Click to expand...

Just to add, I think the college system would be much more effective if kids out of high school were expected to work in the real world for 1-2 years (maybe in an internship-type program), then attend college sometime after that.

I think that 1-2 years of maturing and experience will lead to a college environment that is filled with much more education-oriented individuals, many of which will have a specific focus in mind for going to school, instead of the ‘heavy party’ atmosphere we see now on many of the college campuses. I think this will improve the value of an undergrad education.

teamosil said:

And there is something less tangible to the value of education. The brain is a muscle that grows with exercise. The truth is that most work doesn't really give it the exercise it needs to develop.

Click to expand...

Good point!

teamosil said:

If you want to be an accountant or a lawyer or a doctor or a teacher or something, you absolutely won't even get out of the gates without the proper education.

Click to expand...

I'd still argue otherwise. Lawyers...well they not only need the school, but they have a "crowd-out" effect with the bar exam. Same can be said with CPAs (not just accountants). Anything else though, I'd argue a job out of high school. If you want to go into law, look into being a legal assistant at 18, or crash-course some community college and jump in as a paralegal while you do your pre-law regiment. If you want to be an accountant, learn QuickBooks and Excel and try to get in an office somewhere, or be a seasonal guy at H&R Block (then use offseasons to further educate yourself). Teachers can get into subbing in many states with a diploma, or they could also do the community college thing for a year and be qualified. Even in the professional route, that field experience with a degree a year or two slower than those who go full-time fresh out of high school will fare better.

Lots of people are still deluded into thinking, this economy notwithstanding, that they can get their sheep skin at university and then plunge immediately into a job. Not the case.

David D. said:

Just to add, I think the college system would be much more effective if kids out of high school were expected to work in the real world for 1-2 years (maybe in an internship-type program), then attend college sometime after that.

I think that 1-2 years of maturing and experience will lead to a college environment that is filled with much more education-oriented individuals, many of which will have a specific focus in mind for going to school, instead of the ‘heavy party’ atmosphere we see now on many of the college campuses. I think this will improve the value of an undergrad education.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with that. I went to undergrad right away, but I'm currently in law school after having worked full time for about 14 years. Most people in law school come right out of undergrad never having worked. I absolutely think that gives me a huge advantage. I get a lot more out of it, I take it more seriously, I understand things in a much more real way. That said, in terms of my own economic interests, it's a bad idea. I'm walking away from a successful career and trading it in to start over from scratch at the bottom of the totem pole in another field with a boatload of loans. I can see why going right out of undergrad means the most lifetime earning potential. But, still, you get more out of the experience if you wait. Probably waiting a couple years would have a negligible impact on your earning potential while still giving some better insights.

Gipper said:

I'd still argue otherwise. Lawyers...well they not only need the school, but they have a "crowd-out" effect with the bar exam. Same can be said with CPAs (not just accountants). Anything else though, I'd argue a job out of high school. If you want to go into law, look into being a legal assistant at 18, or crash-course some community college and jump in as a paralegal while you do your pre-law regiment. If you want to be an accountant, learn QuickBooks and Excel and try to get in an office somewhere, or be a seasonal guy at H&R Block (then use offseasons to further educate yourself). Teachers can get into subbing in many states with a diploma, or they could also do the community college thing for a year and be qualified. Even in the professional route, that field experience with a degree a year or two slower than those who go full-time fresh out of high school will fare better.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you're saying get the degree, just do it after working for a few years or go at night while you're working or something? If so, I'd probably agree with that for most fields. Although going to school while you're working is really draining. And if you're shooting for really high end jobs they look for degrees from well respected schools, and most of those require full time daytime enrollment. I think it all depends on your goals. What I would say is don't just go to college because its the thing to do. Figure out some ideas for what your goals might be and work backwards from there to figure out if college would help you achieve those goals or not.

Gipper said:

Lots of people are still deluded into thinking, this economy notwithstanding, that they can get their sheep skin at university and then plunge immediately into a job. Not the case.

Click to expand...

Neither is it the case that you can just automatically get a job straight out of high school though. It's not easy at present after college, but it is still easier than it is right out of high school.

teamosil said:

Oh, so you're saying get the degree, just do it after working for a few years or go at night while you're working or something? If so, I'd probably agree with that for most fields. Although going to school while you're working is really draining. And if you're shooting for really high end jobs they look for degrees from well respected schools, and most of those require full time daytime enrollment. I think it all depends on your goals. What I would say is don't just go to college because its the thing to do. Figure out some ideas for what your goals might be and work backwards from there to figure out if college would help you achieve those goals or not.

Click to expand...

If you're talking the upper echelon jobs, it probably takes more than that. I'd love to work for one of the Big 4 after I finish my CPA (specifically KPMG), but I'm not naive enough to believe that an MBA, a CPA license, and experience is enough. I need to shine like a diamond at 3 or 4 interviews, and even have a great deal of luck to get to that point. I'm just talking about getting your feet wet in the simple career drudgery.

Neither is it the case that you can just automatically get a job straight out of high school though. It's not easy at present after college, but it is still easier than it is right out of high school.

Click to expand...

I'd still argue otherwise, and I have earlier. High school grads command a lower salary, because even with a college degree, you'll be relegated to doing a lot of gopher work and being the kickpost of wherever you work.

Paschendale said:

What's also interesting to note is that some of the highest paid jobs in our society are those that produce the least benefit. Those who make the most are those whose occupations focus solely on making more money, not on producing a good product or providing a valuable service. Corporate accountants and attorneys just help some rich people become richer. A CEO's job isn't to improve the company's product, it's to raise the price of stock.

Meanwhile, we're demonizing teachers for asking for a decent living. Endowments for the arts are always on the chopping block. Veterans' benefits are constantly slashed.

It's strange how we gift such massive rewards on those who do nothing to help this country and the vast majority of people in it, but constantly undervalue those who do.

Click to expand...

Something to ponder next time you go to the movies or watch an NFL game, yes? Who contributes more to society--a nurse or an actor? A firefighter or a football player?

I think the OP way overgeneralizes. What constitutes "hard" work depends on the job. What does "working harder" mean? More hours working or performing well or making lots of money? What about those who are well educated and in professions that don't pay well--the "caring professions"? Are they lazy/not working hard enough if they don't an area of their fields that pays better?

I just don't think that it's all so cut-and-dried.

TurtleDude said:

most of us who are in white collar jobs learned that physical labor was not the way to go. Me, I spent a summer clearing scrub trees out etc. 6-9 hours a day with a chain saw or two man hand saw in 90 degree weather was edification enough. the next summer I worked as a "Gofor" and errand boy and filing clerk for a law firm. big difference and I made sure I got the kind of grades needed to go to a top law school

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you only worked during the summer? Last time I checked, that was afforded to only those who, either have scholarships, or who have parents who can pay their way through school. Everyone else works a job to live while going to school and some of them even get straight A's. So who worked harder, those who had their way payed for them or those who did not? What if a two identically talented individuals where put into a college, one person has his/her way payed and the other did not. Because the one who had to work and go to school did not have as much time to study, he/she didn't get as good grades. Now the odds that that person will go to the best school and make the best money is lessened due to poorer grades; the non-working individual has the advantage. So who worked harder again? And how was that situation a depiction of equal opportunity again? ... just some thoughts

I was raised latchkey, took out tons of student loans, worked all through school, and graduated MCL.

It's the same argument people make to excuse the behavior of others. Effort trumps opportunity every time out of the gate. Rich or poor doesn't matter. The true measure is how badly someone wants it.

Gipper said:

I was raised latchkey, took out tons of student loans, worked all through school, and graduated MCL.

It's the same argument people make to excuse the behavior of others. Effort trumps opportunity every time out of the gate. Rich or poor doesn't matter. The true measure is how badly someone wants it.

Click to expand...

Latchkey, student loans and work study programs are all great examples of ways that the government helps the people who are willing to put in the effort dig themselves out of poverty. Good for you for taking advantage of them. Lets not deny future generations the same chances with all these massive cuts to that kind of program that the Republicans are ramming through.

I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with student loans. Credit built this nation. Were it not for loans, we'd be in hella bad shape. It's an investment. Not only will they get their money back, with interest, but they'll gain more tax revenue over the course of my life. Lucky them.

What return on investment does welfare give? I'd be more inclined to believe in the state of welfare if I thought the chances were great that someone takes a helping hand until they were able to prop themselves up, and then become productive members of society. I'm sure there are many like that. They need to be brought to light more, because all I see and all I'm shown is the abusers.

Gipper said:

What return on investment does welfare give? I'd be more inclined to believe in the state of welfare if I thought the chances were great that someone takes a helping hand until they were able to prop themselves up, and then become productive members of society. I'm sure there are many like that. They need to be brought to light more, because all I see and all I'm shown is the abusers.

Click to expand...

Welfare isn't about the recipients. If it were we would make it available to everybody who needed it. But we don't. You can only get it if you have a young kid. It's really about taking the economic boot off the throat of their kids a little bit.

MusicAdventurer said:

Are you saying that you only worked during the summer? Last time I checked, that was afforded to only those who, either have scholarships, or who have parents who can pay their way through school. Everyone else works a job to live while going to school and some of them even get straight A's.

Click to expand...

Just have to chime in and say that I only worked (at least heavily) during summers too in college, for the most part, and I neither had (a) parents who could pay my way through school or (b) a scholarship.

I did this by taking out student loans.

teamosil said:

Welfare isn't about the recipients. If it were we would make it available to everybody who needed it. But we don't. You can only get it if you have a young kid. It's really about taking the economic boot off the throat of their kids a little bit.

Click to expand...

Don't you see that as a slippery slope though? Truth is that we should look at other factors. Perhaps we can go through someone's previous W-2s over the last 5-7 years. If someone on a McDonalds salary suddenly has a kid and grabs her tin cup, we need to put out a "closed" sign. We don't need to subsidize stupidity or, in this case, probable fraud.

nota bene said:

Something to ponder next time you go to the movies or watch an NFL game, yes? Who contributes more to society--a nurse or an actor? A firefighter or a football player?

I think the OP way overgeneralizes. What constitutes "hard" work depends on the job. What does "working harder" mean? More hours working or performing well or making lots of money? What about those who are well educated and in professions that don't pay well--the "caring professions"? Are they lazy/not working hard enough if they don't an area of their fields that pays better?

I just don't think that it's all so cut-and-dried.

Click to expand...

Hard work is hard work

It means coming home at the end of the day tired, either physically or mentally.

It does not mean you get paid more, or infact deserve more pay. How much the position contributes to society does not matter either.

Pay is determined by supply and demand. The more people that can do a specific job, the pay will be lower then if fewer people can do the job (of course doing the job means having employers believe you can do the job rather then whether or not you can)

From the CEO down to the night janitor, the pay is typically determined by supply and demand, with some modifications based on certain aspects (Min wage, union contracts, compensation commitees)

Gipper said:

Don't you see that as a slippery slope though? Truth is that we should look at other factors. Perhaps we can go through someone's previous W-2s over the last 5-7 years. If someone on a McDonalds salary suddenly has a kid and grabs her tin cup, we need to put out a "closed" sign. We don't need to subsidize stupidity or, in this case, probable fraud.

Click to expand...

You aren't saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children are you? Eugenics bad.

teamosil said:

You aren't saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children are you? Eugenics bad.

Click to expand...

That's precisely what I am saying.

They shouldn't be allowed to have a Porsche. They shouldn't be allowed to have a yacht. What makes this different?

Higher income earners don't necessarily "work harder." Some are just more intelligent, have developed skills that are more useful to more people, are more cunning, patient, socially competent, able to understand and play into the politics of the structures above their heads, took bigger risks that paid off. Possibilities are endless.