Debate Mansion

   

Most overpaid/underpaid profession? (Page 33)

Post Reply New Post

Page 33 of 37

Mister.K.

IF-Dazzler

Joined: 28 February 2009

Posts: 2950

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 2:39pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Most overpaid/underpaid profession? (Page 33)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 2:54pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13895

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 3:23pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Mister.K.

Originally posted by souro

Say there are a 1000 universities (including Stanford) and a total of 100 professors are required for each university, i.e. we require 100,000 professors.

To make each university excellent, we will require that all 100,000 professors are brilliant. For that we'll have to show them that they'll have better opportunity cost as professors. Simply put, we'll have to pay them more than what they'd have earned at another job. But you've already thrown the idea of higher pay out of the window.

So, we recruit 100,000 people as professors at a wage which is comparable with many other jobs. Not all professors from the 100,000 that we recruit will be equally good, it's simply not possible. Say we get only 10,000 professors who are actually good.
We will have two choices:
1. We can let 100 universities have the top 10,000 professors and the mediocre and not so good professors can be distributed among the rest of the universities. This will ensure that the brilliant students will have a place where there brilliance can be further polished. And brilliant group of faculty will ensure that they will be compatible with each other and will learn from each other.

2. Or we can have each of the 1000 universities have 10 good professor each and have 90 mediocre and not so good professors. But that will only ensure that not a single university, including Stanford, gets quality staff for all positions. Effectively you did take out the 'special' out of Stanford. On top of that, by placing the brilliant professors in a majority group of mediocre, you've seriously limited their potential utility.

You are preferring the second way. You might have heard about this. If you flatten the Alps and distribute the soil evenly across Europe, it will raise the level of the continent by only 6 inches. I feel that is what you're trying to achieve. The problem that I have with it is, you won't make any significant difference to those who are at the bottom but you'll bring down those who have rightfully earned their place at the top.


Going by your example, if we are in need of 10 teaching staff per university, we would draw the 10 from an available pool of accredited professionals that have registered themselves with a consortium.

That would eliminate the bias that only one university might end up with the best.

I think we are unnecessarily complicating things. I don't want to eliminate the bias completely because I know it's not possible.

"we would draw the 10 from an available pool of accredited professionals that have registered themselves with a consortium"

Where will that pool come from?? It's the population right. If it's the population then we will have to consider the fact that there will be other opportunities for those people. That is why I said that if we want the pool of professors to contain only brilliant people then we will have to offer them a better deal than the other opportunities that are present to them.

 

If we have to attract only brilliant minds to become professor with higher pay, the next question will be, is that feasible? And if it's feasible does it make financial and administrative sense to have most of your brain power in one single profession, i.e. will it be utilised for the purpose for which we are spending the money and won't we lose out on other fronts where there will be a dearth of brain power?

 

If our financial condition permits then yes we will end up with 1000 excellent universities with all brilliant faculties and facilities. But the million students who'll study in these universities, will they all be extraordinary too. Most students are mediocre and can't grasp higher level knowledge as easily as their brighter counterparts. To provide these mediocre students with brilliant professors will be a waste of money, cos whether you give them mediocre professor or brilliant professor, you'll get almost the same output from them.

However, the same is not true for the small percentage of brilliant students, as the output in this case will differ significantly depending on whether you provide them with brilliant or mediocre teaching staff. Which is why we need those 100 excellent universities.


So, instead of 1000 excellent universities, we can have only 100 excellent and the rest 900 mediocre universities and yet fulfill the necessities/ demands of the society. Having more than 100 excellent universities will simply be a waste of resources.


The ones considered mediocre would be put through rigorous training and development. They would be evaluated and tested constantly to ensure that they meet the exacting standards of the consortium. The plan operates under the belief that genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. No one is born genius unless we are talking about that one exceptional guy that comes along once a century (like Einstein or Newton)

I don't know why you're forgetting this, that even after umpteenth training and tests you'll still have some people who'll have better performance and abilities than the others. You simply can't eliminate or discount that fact.


BTW, not all people at the top are brilliant and hard working while the ones who remained at the bottom are mediocre and lazy. To me, that's extreme generalization. Hopefully, we will dispel with such notions moving forward.
The ones at the top are there for a reason and same is true for those who are at the bottom. Brilliance and hard work may or may not be the only factors involved. I don't think I have generalised it that way.

Curriculum, faculty and facilities are but a few dimensions that make a Stanford or an IIT what they are. We need to duplicate the model elsewhere. At the outset, it could look like a daunting task but I believe it's doable.
It's known to everyone that everything has x number of variables and not just 1. But in the current scenario where we are just taking an example can we please explain one factor satisfactorily first before we try to grapple with a zillion factors together.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13895

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 3:28pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Mister.K.

If it's about having the last word or advancing a couple of vested interests rooted in exploiting the poor, then I have no further interest in this thread. I will excuse myself out with this final post on this topic.

If it is the method (of providing an equal opportunity to one and all) that you are questioning, then I could delve at length on how we should go about it. On the other hand, if you are against equal opportunity itself, then I neither have the penchant nor the respect to engage you in discussions. It's not even a question of ideology then. It's a question of justice (the premise on which the topic is based) and who is for it and who is against it.

I answered every question that was brought up. It's not that you are not convinced. It's just that you don't want to be convinced.  For instance, you asked how I propose to improve the school system. I told you how. You asked how I propose to care of the faculty distribution. I told you how. You talked about risks. I answered. I mean, how many owners were injured or died on the job compared to how many employees? Get a report from the internet if you are interested in finding out, I can't spoon feed information. Oh! Workers compensation, right?! That covers everything, right?! But the owner "losing it all" is irreplaceable, right?!

Thanks for your time.


If that's what you feel I was doing then you should've told me so long ago. Would've saved time for both of us.

cuckoocutter

Senior Member

Joined: 08 December 2009

Posts: 835

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 3:29pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13895

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 3:34pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by Mister.K.

Souro, there is an inherent risk in everything we do. The FedEx employee delivering a package might meet with an accident on the road. The pizza delivery guy working for Dominos Pizza might get stabbed on one of his routes. The construction worker might fall off the building. The children working on assembling fire crackers in Sivakasi might die if an explosion takes place.

Point is, it's not just the owners who take risk. Employees face huge risks as well.
 
Yes there is risk in everything. And the remuneration of a job considers the risk involved, intelligence required, efforts required, value generated and obviously the need for that job to the society.
Now, I don't know about you but IMO and in the opinion of most people in this society, a person who is putting everything at stake to start a new business is taking a far greater risk than someone delivering a package or a pizza.
And the bigger the venture, greater the risks.

 
You nailed it in the head here.  It amuses me how the basic principles of FIN 101 are also ignored along with ECON 101. 
 
Additionally, if one solely focus on job related risk then they should keep in mind that companies cover their employees for on the job or job related injuries/death.  Additionally, no employer recruits work force at gun point --- unless one is hell bent on calling underworld a business too!
 
Souro, you pretty much made all the points I had in mind and then some more.  

Actually, there is so much that can be said on this. Most probably you also might've realised this, that when explaining things about this topic, posts can tend to be very lengthy. Thinking and saying something is much simpler as both have almost the same speed but thinking and typing it out on a forum is totally out of sync as the typing part is so time consuming. I had to cut down many points simply because I didn't want to type any more.
I am actually happy that this discussion has ended. Tongue

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 3:55pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

souro

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13895

Posted: 18 July 2010 at 4:04pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by cuckoocutter


lol i see we painted ourselves a nice rosy picture, where we got ourselves a hard-working owner who takes risks. but why we talking about them? for most part, owners are either mom and pop shop keepers (and no one wud grudge them their earnings), or small-pension-shareholders (who earn measly amounts in their mutual funds).

what we shud actually be talkin about are the top execs of companies they dint start. that's the main problem we got. it seem to me these blue suits take nowhere the level of risk that wud be commensurate with their earnings.it's not even all performance-based with them. that dont happen on wall street where numbers are objective and measurable... yet people can and do get ahead because of non-performance factors.

[U}when we talk of value generation, we also gotta be clear what value we talkin about. is it value to larry flynt and penthouse? lol.[/U] come on, he sees value pimpin women in his tabloid. his girls make a million bucks or so for the fine art of being able to lie spread-eagled on some bed wearing frilly laces. perfectly justifiable you wud say, right?does he deserve his hundreds of millions? do the chicks deserve the mill? lol.

see [U} there's ethical societal value and there's business value to a pimp or someone who knows how to pander or pull a fast one on people[/U]. i am all for people who create ethical societal value, not people who can get paid fortunes because of somethin notorious they did.

coming to wall street bankers, what risks do they take? heads, they make millions. tails, at worst they lose their jobs, but find another one because they got experience lol (albeit a losing one at that). it aint their own money they were plying to begin with. its same thing with so many of the execs.

based on my observations, there's very few owners who really create societal value that get paid huge sums (more power to them i say). that's a red herring and it's distraction talking about them. we shud be talking about others who get ahead big without creating much value. that's what's sick about the system we got. it's the rare case where we got an owner who creates value and where he gets paid big. that i got no problem with.

It's still the same thing and has already been covered earlier.
If a prostitute makes millions, then it's because her clients think that it's worth millions to get an opportunity to sleep with her.

If the those investment bankers are making millions, then it's because people are depending on them to get their hundreds or thousands or millions. If people feel that the banker doesn't deserve so much money, then fine let them invest on their own. No one has stopped them from doing that.

Same thing for employees and heads of the company. If someone feels that they can do a better job for less pay, let them come forward and do it. If the employees feel that they are not being compensated satisfactorily then let them join another job. It might be unfair if all the employers form a syndicate and decide not to pay their employees handsomely. But even then in a free society the employers will risk losing their employees to an altogether another industry. It's not serfdom where you can force someone to work for you even if he doesn't want to.

Now, whether the one who has risen to the top, deserves to be at the top on merit or whether he is there because of connections. And how fair or unfair it is to rise to the top using connections is a completely different debate. But as Gauri had already explained in one of her earlier posts, the risks for a head of an organisation is much higher. A lower level employee goofs up, he can brush it under the carpet and restart. But as the level becomes higher, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to brush aside their goof ups as the goof ups will have serious impact on the organisation. So,I don't think we should begrudge the higher pays that they receive for their responsibilities.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Most overrated / underrated profession is?

2 3 4 5

raj5000 39 3994 12 July 2009 at 9:39am
By U-No-Poo
Mistakes in Medical Profession

2 3 4

raj5000 31 1484 21 December 2007 at 6:41pm
By ~globetrotter~
Profession and Potential raj5000 3 384 03 July 2007 at 1:27am
By mermaid_QT
Profession Vs Hobby IdeaQueen 2 467 21 September 2006 at 11:45pm
By IdeaQueen

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.