Do you think jobs that benefit society should pay MORE and entertainment jobs that don't should pay LESS?

[Slim57]

Yes I do

No I think it's fine as is

Other

[CalmUntilAbused]

That's a dangerous matter. All in all, the jobs contributing to society should pay more, but it should be achieved through popular human will and awareness and through the free market, not through any state regulations. The problem is, entertainment jobs do contribute to society, as well, even though significantly less than the most basic jobs that can bring about the collapse of civilization itself if not getting done for too long. Entertainment is a human need, and while it's far less important than sanitary services or grocery shopping, it's an important part of any culture that reaches a certain level of wealth. If people want to pay more for entertainment than for the most important, absolutely basic services, maybe those providing those services might go on strike, depriving the society of said services, kind of MGTOW way, but it could be even more effective than any MGTOW-based societal withdrawal, even a massive one (some of the MGTOW work in less crucial services). It's sometimes said we don't know the true value of anything until we lose that thing. If the society had to do without these services for long enough, the people might actually start (socially) worshipping those who provide those services.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Jobs that benefit society should be paid better, but entertainment can stay as it is, at least its comforting. Instead cut down the money from "jobs" that only earn a profit for the alreay super rich.

[pickles77]

It’s more about supply and demand. If you have a movie star. millions of people are going to see them and they will be the one that brings in the profits. So naturally the value that they bring to that company will be far greater and therefore they will get paid more because they are the only one or a select few that are key to the film.


Then take education for example. It’s very important for society but if you payed teachers like movie stars no parent would send them to school because nobody could afford it.


It just won’t work unfortunately unless there is a way to make there education profitable for someone else. Such as training for a skilled trade. They won’t be rich but they will get the knowledge and be able to share in some of the wealth that they are bringing into the company.


so you could make jobs that benefit others and allow it to pay more but to get that money you have to take it from the community that you are helping. Maby you find that it’s important for tribes in Ethiopia to have a well for water. Normally there is no profit in that. If you are looking to profit from doing good works. You would not really be giving anymore, you would have to make a deal. For example “we could build you a well that you are free to drink from, you can wash your cloths in it, cook etc. but in exchange I will need you to work for me and farm so that I can sell resources. Now you could make “more” for being so beneficial to society. Although I don’t like this idea.


On face value it sounds good to pay people more who benefit society. However it gets to a point where it is no long good because the people that you are trying to help are in more need then you are and you would have to extort them in order to be on such a high pedestal and I just don’t think it would be honorable at that point.


So I don’t agree that those jobs should be paid more without an ethical way to do that and clearly there are certain ways to do it. If you cure cancer for example your definitely gonna be bringing in the dough but that’s because your making a massive impact not just helping a small community. So if you can think in terms of scale you can be rich from benefiting society but don’t expect who hires you to prioritize you over there customer base. It just won’t function that way.

[NathanDavis]

no, that's not how life works... because we are not really like that (in general)

there's been many studies in which most people are willing to earn less money if this means they earn more than others and many people are not willing to earn less if they earn the same as others

in general we want more than others because it benefits us... and for this we do not consider people as other people that are equal to us... we focus on our benefit alone

and this is also in part why... it is us, that overpay all these figures in entertainment, nobody nowhere forces you to overpay for entertainment... they only overprice stuff because we keep paying

if we truly, as the people in the society wanted an equal benefit for most us... we would already have cooperatives and trades of many kinds, that would make us all more equal and beneficial to one another but... no, we are not

[Dargil]

Yes, and don't forget "professional" sports. Unfortunately, there's no way to implement that and the entertainment and sports jobs are more profitable to investors.

What is an HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning master technician worth? A lot.

[exitseven]

Yes, but in a free economy it is the amount of revenue a person can generate determines what they are worth. Taylor Swift can sell out a football stadium and a doctor can only Lance a boil.

[IslaTheWitch]

earnings should be directly proportional to the time required to acquire the skills necessary for a given position

[ShellyBo]

If I had my way, basket and football players would make minimum wage. Scientists would be the ones with trophies and draped in gold.

[syncheart]

I think the reason why people are willing to pay the entertainers so much money is because they help us have fun an forget about our issues for an hour or so.

[worldscolide]

I absolutely agree. Stop with the hundred million dollar salaries for entertainers and athletes.

[OddBeMe]

Toughy. You’re talking about social engineering by taking capitalist demand out of the equation.

I mean we do that already in some respects. Iffy.

[Massageman]

So, professional sports participants should get next to nothing, then! Works for me.

[Anonymous]

Yes but that's impossible unless people stop simping for celebrities

[RavVid]

in an ideal world yes but it isn't one.

[Pete671]

Yes absolutely!

[Anonymous]

Everyone should be paid the same per hour.

[jahaims]

Nope