Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I wouldn't dream of
>replacing Kat or any other farmer. And taking a wider swing I wouldn't even
>dream
>of replacing any nurse, teacher or other by you called 'low value jobs'.
John's point is that there are many people that could and would take that
job, as opposed to jobs like structural engineer or lawyer, for which there
are not as many people which could fill the role.
Here's another hypothesis based on observation:
Salary for a particular occupation is indirectly proportional to the number
of people capable of performing that occupation at a basic level, and
willing to take the job.
Examples:
Average Teacher (public school) - it's relatively easy to be a bad teacher,
thus teachers aren't paid much.
Excellent Teacher (public school) - due to unions and other factors, is not
distinguished from average teacher.
Nursing - there are lots of people with the training.
Average Lawyer - demands years of education, and a general level of
competency.
Excellent Lawyer - demands years of education, lots of experience, and a
fair amount of creativity.
CEO of Large Company - must inspire confidence; therefore a past history of
success is essential, leading to very few available candidates.
...
The hypothesis falls out of a capitalist economy - it's basic supply and
demand. Why is there such confusion about it?
>What bugs me here is that there are still a lot of politicians doing... not
>much
>for the general wellfare of the public and as a reward get paid rather
>hansomely
>for it. Some of them seem to me more like over fed, over paid good for
>nothing
>idiots tottering along as the overhead of our state is growing.
It's like complaining that the best Sumo wrestlers are fat guys. Based on
the rules, it's inevitable what sort of person will fill that role.
Politicians are selected for playing the games of politics as exposed by our
laws and constitutions, and are extremely good at that. That is, schmoozing
and making connections, compromising and cutting deals. That's what politics
demand, so that's what politicians do.
>I'd love to vote to make participation in politics a voluntary job, take
>the money
>out of it. To asure survival to the politician, he wouldn't get paid more
>then
>minimum wage, and only for those hours spent on the job. Also he'd get not
>a penny
>more then was actually laid out for simple expenses. Alas I also see a lot
>of
>problems rising from a government of mere amateurs.
Are you proposing this in a representative democracy? How would that even
work?
Most of the people who aren't elected officials aren't paid nearly as well
as those specifically selected by the people they represent. The
decision-makers - whom we, the people, selected to make decisions for us,
are the few politicians. If you're proposing that they be made volunteers -
that is, if we vote you into office, you don't get paid - then you open the
flood gates up to control by the very rich, who can "donate" a hell of a lot
more than the poor.
I'm not going to vote for anyone stupid enough to take a massive pay cut. :)
Everyone else in the governmental machine is paid a salary - and already
below what those people could make in industry.
>On a more realistic note, I think the biggest problem in politics as far as
>I can
>see it, is that lots of regulations that are rigorously and without any
>form of
>mercy applied to the general populace are not applied to our governmental
>force,
>because they are 'special / better / irriplaceble ?!'.
Example?
>I really think that that
>should change. Let them live under exactly the same rules and regulations
>as we
>do, with the same modest wages and without all that 'schnik schnak' that
>'goes
>with the job'.
So pay them less than they'd make if they weren't in the government? What's
the incentive?
>Let them be annoyed at having to stand in line for a meal,
Hmmm.... I don't think politicians over here get special "cut to the front
of the line" cards at McDonalds.
>a
>busticket or a seat on the plane.
Erm... don't you order these on the phone? And anyone with a secretary (you
do want them focusing on politics, right, not minutia?) should be delegating
that sort of thing.
>Let them get angry over being caught up in
>traffic every day
I'm sure they are. There aren't special "politician only" lanes over here.
>and the unworkabillity of stupid tax rules.
That's what accountants are for. Over here, they're really cheap.
>...of which I'm also not such a big fan. So we keep on tumbling along,
>untill
>humanity becomes a bit more mature and finally grows out of it's childish
>sandbox
>mentality.
Which is what? What is it that you view as the ultimate stable state for
humanity (or neo-humanity)?
The future of "1984" comes to mind, where you're gently reminded by other
members of society how not to rock the boat and fit in, and to contribute to
the welfare of everyone.
Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
