dzd@cosivax.UUCP (Dean Douthat) (07/20/85)
> In <31600137@uiucdcs> Scott McEwan writes: > From time to time in this discussion, people have mentioned "garbageman" > as an example of an overpaid profession. I want to point out that garbage > collecting is a hazardous job. There is a fairly high risk of disease (not > to mention the fact that the job is just generally unpleasant). You couldn't > pay me enough to collect garbage. I suspect that if the salaries were > regulated so that garbagemen and McDonald's counter workers were paid the > same, then McDonald's would have more job applicants than they know what > to do with, and no one would be collecting garbage. It seems to me that Scott has hit upon the key to a possible solution to this comparable worth problem. To explain this, let me first make an analogy that I hope will clarify the approach. Consider the problem of making a sports book, that is betting on outcomes of sports events. This is a problem of determining comparable worth between opposing teams. If, say, Oklahoma (OK) is playing football against Slippery Rock State Teachers College (SRSTC), we have an analogous situation to that Scott cited. Like Scott, I suspect that if the point spreads were regulated so that OK and SRSTC bettors were paid the same, then bookmakers would have more OK bettors than they know what to do with, and no one would be betting on SRSTC. This is quite a potential disaster for bookmakers, since, in fact, the chances are overwhelming that OK *will* beat SRSTC and the bookies will lose their collective shirts. Thus a straight bet is not fair, in short, the comparable worth of the two teams is not equal. To equalize the bet, points are given to the weaker team, in bookie talk, the bet is, for example, SRSTC +49, meaning OK is worth 49 points more than SRSTC. Thus points are used as a metric for comparable worth, just like salary for jobs. We might even go so far as to call such a metric a `medium of exchange'. We now come to the crucial question of comparable worth for football books: "Who determines the point spreads and on what basis?" There are two answers to this question, popular myth and actual method. The myth is that somewhere (probably Las Vegas) there dwells a football point spread guru (probably Nick The Greek) who sets the point spreads for each football game each week. This guru studies all these teams strengths and weakness and comes up with a semi-mystical measure of comparable worth for each opposing pair. When I place a bet, I am actually betting against this guru. This is quite a useful myth to the bookies since *all* bettors feel they are betting against the guru, *no matter which side they bet on.* This can hardly be true since then the bookies have no possibility of winning. But you can understand the PR value such a myth has to the bookies. That's why they carefully foster it by having actual bookies like Nick The Greek appearing on TV and the like. Reality, of course, is far less colorful. In fact, the bookies *never gamble at all*; there is simply *no possibility* that the bookies can lose. It works like this, the point spreads are *adjusted* throughout the week until the number betting for OK is *exactly equal to* the number betting for SRSTC. If I bet on OK, I am not betting against the guru that OK will beat SRSTC by more than 49, rather I am betting against the hundreds of thousands who bet the opposite. The point spread then is a consensus evaluation by multiple thousands of football fans of the comparable worth of OK and SRSTC. All the bookies are doing is providing a service that allows this consensus to be arrived at and expressed conveniently. Notice that once this balance of bets is achieved, it eliminates the possibility of loss by bookies. Their profit comes from a commission for these services (usually 10%) levied against *winning* bets only. Now back to garbage and McDonald's. (Uh, well sure, that's all right.) Let's apply the bookie solution. The method, employers adjust the pay for counter worker until the number of applicants is *exactly equal to* the number of openings and then do the same for garbage collecters. We might even go so far as to call these balancing salaries `market clearing prices for labor'. In this way, thousands of prospective counter workers and garbage collecters can reach consensus on their worth. Finally, take a ratio between the balancing salaries arrived at for the two. Presto! a consensus measure of comparable worth. According to Scott's surmise, the worth of garbage collecting would be considerably higher than that of counter worker. But we needn't rely on Scott's opinion nor on that of anybody else. It is the consensus of the *job applicants themselves* which determines worth. The employers fill the same role as the bookies by providing a mechanism to allow this consensus to be arrived at and expressed. But they charge no fee for this service. Then there's the mythical approach. Congress could pass laws and spend money so that somewhere (probably Washington D.C.) there would dwell a salary guru (probably a high school drop out) who sets salaries each week for every job in each region of the nation... Dean Douthat
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/24/85)
Dean Douthat writes (to paraphrase) : employers = bookies and the result is a consenus as to occupation worth. Good analogy except for a couple things here and there. 1. Perhaps societys highest goal should not necessarily be to maximize the bookies (employers) earnings. Prove to me that a healthy, happy society requires this type of "end" to be pursued. 2. In our society people do not have the freedom to bet on whichever team they choose (have whatever job/position they desire). You have chosen a biased paradigm and then demonstrated internal consistency. This says nothing about whether the state of affairs described is desirable which is certainly the pertinent question to ask. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
cgeiger@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (charles s. geiger) (07/26/85)
> Now back to garbage and McDonald's. (Uh, well sure, that's all > right.) Let's apply the bookie solution. The method, employers > adjust the pay for counter worker until the number of applicants is > *exactly equal to* the number of openings and then do the same > for garbage collecters. We might even go so far as to call these > balancing salaries `market clearing prices for labor'. In this way, > thousands of prospective counter workers and garbage collecters can > reach consensus on their worth. Finally, take a ratio between the > balancing salaries arrived at for the two. Presto! a consensus > measure of comparable worth. But we all know that this economic theory junk *doesn't* work in real life! An example that quickly comes to mind is one that people are always bringing up on the net--nurses: there's always a shortage of nurses, but salaries never go up (in addition, physicians' attitudes towards nurses never get any better, but that's another story) to attract more possible nurses. Of course, I don't hold out for any *real* comparable worth legislation ever; it would turn the whole society upside down. For me, *real* comparable worth would mean that people who worked shit jobs (like secretary, garbage collector, Jack-in-the-Box worker) would get paid a premium; they are necessary jobs that others are unwilling to do. Professionals would get paid *less*, because they generally enjoy their work and derive a great deal of satisfaction from it (who cares that they spent years in school developing skills? nobody made them). Yes, that means you, computer programmers! Charles S. Geiger Department of Economics University of Texas
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/30/85)
In article <2241@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > 1. > Perhaps societys highest goal should not necessarily be to maximize the > bookies (employers) earnings. Prove to me that a healthy, happy society > requires this type of "end" to be pursued. What 'society' are you talking about? The average person on the street (you know: the person with one breast, one testicle, and .8 children)? The Great Conspiracy of the Fat Cats Against the Oppressed (soon to be a major motion picture)? What higher goal is there than acting according to your conscience? -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/30/85)
In article <2171@ut-ngp.UTEXAS>, cgeiger@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (charles s. geiger) writes: > But we all know that this economic theory junk *doesn't* work in > real life! An example that quickly comes to mind is one that > people are always bringing up on the net--nurses: there's always a > shortage of nurses, but salaries never go up ... > to attract more possible nurses. > Charles S. Geiger > Department of Economics > University of Texas That's because the nurses' employers aren't really all that interested in running their hospitals fully staffed. If the shortage of nurses got to the point where it interfered with hospital INCOME (by being so shortstaffed that they had to turn away paying customers) things would start to turn around. (Do you have to be a jerk to run a hospital, or does it just help?) In businesses where the medium-term survival of the company depends on being fully staffed with good people, supply and demand is very, very real. -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/07/85)
> In article <2241@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > 1. > > Perhaps societys highest goal should not necessarily be to maximize the > > bookies (employers) earnings. Prove to me that a healthy, happy society > > requires this type of "end" to be pursued. > > What 'society' are you talking about? The average person on the street > (you know: the person with one breast, one testicle, and .8 > children)? The Great Conspiracy of the Fat Cats Against the Oppressed > (soon to be a major motion picture)? Take a look around; see over there? That one, thats the society I'm talking about - the one, I assume, your living in. p.s. maybe this ought to be moved out of net.women? > > What higher goal is there than acting according to your conscience? If you've got one perhaps none. > -- > > > Robert Plamondon > {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.