on 13/2/01 5:34 PM, Joshua Bell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
There is a very serious shortage of teachers in the UK because of low pay.
In Scotland teachers have received a 23% pay rise, and in England graduates
(in certain subjects) who choose to train as teachers will have their
student loans waived. Since a teacher will probably work for 35 to 40 years
and it is not practical to change in mid-career (seniority, pensions,
retraining) it can take a *very* long time for the invisible hand to
recognise that supply and demand are out of kilter.
>
> Nursing - there are lots of people with the training.
>
Another severe shortage in the UK. We are hiring nurses from the Philippines
and Australia.
> 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.
My sister started training as a nurse (a four year BSc degree in nursing)
and then changed to vocational nurse training (get paid for training instead
of paying for training). Either way it is the same job. In Scotland a lawyer
typically does a three year law degree followed by a year with a law
company. Doesn't look any harder than nursing (a lot easier actually). Not
surprising that there is an increasing shortage of people considering
training as nurses.
>
> CEO of Large Company - must inspire confidence; therefore a past history of
> success is essential, leading to very few available candidates.
>
Many CEOs of the computer, internet and other high-tech industries are heads
of large companies because they were in the right place at the right time.
> ...
>
> The hypothesis falls out of a capitalist economy - it's basic supply and
> demand. Why is there such confusion about it?
Another natural tendency of capitalism is toward monopolies and cartels. In
the UK all the longer-established professions (medicine, law, accountancy
etc) have professional bodies to represent their interests *and regulate the
number of practitioners by restricting the numbers granted accreditation*.
It is impossible to work in any of these professions without going through
probation and accreditation through organisations that are already
accredited. (Doctors in hospitals, lawyers in law firms and so on).
The UK Universities are complicit in this process by restricting places in
these subjects to the numbers accepted by the professional bodies (who are
of course represented on the faculties of all these departments).
So there really isn't any such thing as an unemployed doctor, lawyer,
accountant etc willing to work cheaper and exert downward pressure on
professional salaries.
(And offering to work cheap is probably the kind of 'professional
misconduct' which gets one de-accredited anyhow.)
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
