Can one determine the importance of something in America about the amount of money we spend on it? Would I be wrong to say . . . .we think Kim KArdashian [makes about 12 million annually] is worth 80 doctors [Average Doctor makes 100000 - 150000] or 215 Teachers [55.6 in cali highest in nation] or 227 Soldiers [avg salary 45] or 279 Police Officer [Avg Salary 45] Not limit it to the entertainment industry look at these CEOs http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_CEO-Compensation_Rank.html Lawrence J Ellison - CEO of Oracle - makes 192000000 a yr. or 1280 doctors Is his value to American Society more important than 1280 doctors? Why or Why not? Rocket River
for the sake of argument, are we saying Oracle is more important than 1,280 doctors? if that's the case I would most definitely say yes
That Ceo is way more valuable than 279 police officers who make all their money from speeding tickets.
They're reaching more people with more goods and services, and serving a larger percentage of total demand than any of those individual professions. Absent that they're higher up in the organizational hierarchy and responsible for more people: same reason some lament teachers' salaries, but any superintendent in an average sized district is pulling $300k. I really don't believe there's any need to moralize this.
People often forget that "rarity" factors a lot into this. The most obvious example the cost of water compared to diamond. One is crucial to a person's life and the other is pure luxury good. So why do prices show just the opposite? If a great policeman is as hard to find as Lebron James, then policemen would be millionaires. If your average 3rd grade teacher can run a multi-billion dollar business, then CEOs would be making under 100k/yr.
So what service is Kim Kardashian providing? and to how many people? Sorry, my question didn't have any context in that post. I'm trying to figure out how you determined that Kim Kardashian serves a higher percentage of total demand than teachers do. This, of course, ignores critical parts of your argument, mainly: - Not all services are equally valuable to humans, so comparing percentages of demand for varying services seems to have little value. You don't need to be a scientist to figure out that a teacher is offering a more valuable and socially critical service than Kim Kardashian. - You're completely ignoring externalities i.e. the effect on other stakeholders. While education usually has a positive effect on people outside the buyer-seller relationship, I wonder what can be said about the effect of Kim's services on people outside the buyer-seller relationship. I'm not saying you're wrong or I disagree with you. I agree that, given these variables, the outcome is less than surprising. That means the system does what we undersand it to do. But that does not mean the system is generating accurate results, i.e. is Kim K worth a couple of thousand teachers? The point is not to belittle what Kim does or to ignore the formula which resulted in her success. But it does seem strange that the expected output is supposed to be an accurate valuation of Kim K, but given what we know about how we value things, the results seem out of order. My own goal is simply to question whether this is the system that everyone wants. Yes we understand it. Yes it is better than other alternatives formulated decades or centuries ago. Yes it provides a higher ceiling and lower floor. We can list lots of advantages/disadvantages of using this system, but ideally we are kind of looking for the highest advantage/disadvantage ratio. It's not a natural system, it's not ancient and it's not traditional. It's just another model, like many models, submodels, and mutated models. There is nothing which says any single model must be pursued with vigilance or must be independent of other models. There is no good way for us to make a comparison anymore since the biggest beneficiaries of capitalism are in fairly good control of the means by which to push/reject an economic model. Right now, the world is at risk. With space being militarized, nuclear weapons in war zones, the old powers interfering in proxy wars, nuclear proliferation, strong anti-government sentiment, damaged economies, high poverty, food crisis, financial crisis, environmental crisis, you name it. How do we look at all this objectively? It would be nice if there was a comparison point, like another inhabited planet with similar history. But there isn't one we know of. So the best we can do is compare to the past, project for the future, and objectively/independently track/review the successes and failures. Lots of unanswered questions. Wasn't picking on your post specifically, was just typing and thinking out loud. Though personally I think Kim K is easily worth 80 of the doctors I've ever visited lol.
I could maybe understand if you picked another CEO, but Ellison built oracle. He deserves the fruits of his labor.
There is a superstar effect in some industries were the product is infinitely reproduceable and the variable costs are negligible that makes a couple individual producers worth exponentially more on only a slight qualitative advantage. So, there are many very good basketball players in the US, but only 450 can make NBA-money despite being only slightly better at basketball (or maybe, like Ryan Bowen, they're worse but they have a high motor, the right attitude and a good fit with the coach). The 450th best player makes $500k, while the 451st best player might make 1/10th of that. The same thing is thing is true with musicians and pop stars, authors, artists, and so on -- why listen to the second best singer when the best one costs the same per unit. And, you can print CDs or posters or videos for a nickel each and literally sell one to everyone in the planet if you needed to. And, this is possible because we have the means to distribute the content so easily. If this was 1700, Kardashian wouldn't be anything. No television, no internet, no gossip rags. Britney Spears too. You can't get rich when you have to play music for only the people who fit in the room. But, I think you can eliminate that problem by comparing what we pay collectively to an industry. How much do we pay for music in aggregate compared to how much for law enforcement. Still not perfect, but it eliminates the superstar effect.
Grammar fail in the thread title. it's either: Does America vote with its Dollars or Do Americans vote with their Dollars
There was this cool 70's article from the Atlantic describing how the diamond's rarity is largely fabricated and its value is more from the cut and grade than the actual supply. Seems kinda related to the discussion. I'm sure for every one Kim or Paris, there are 50,000+ willing to trade their souls and dignity for that spot. I guess it pays to be (or pretend to be) a scumbag casting director. Protip: When everyone's digging for gold, sell shovels. When hasn't it in recent memory? Overpopulation kind of tips the scale by the wayside...
