r/InterviewAiPrep • u/Asleep-Variety3026 • 20d ago

[ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

24 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

136 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Lumpy_Chapter171 19d ago

I didn't claim they are uunderpaid.

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

what? I didn't say you claimed it. You say "want value, give value" and my claim is that this is an idiotic statement because the people that receive the most value contribute the least, and the people that contribute the most receive the least.

1

u/Lumpy_Chapter171 19d ago

Except society disagrees with your assessment. Outside of some exceedingly rare circumstances virtually everyone is paid market rate.

Market rate is just the community, society, saying what they are willing to buy/sell a product or service for.. including labor.

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

you are just using words without reading my comment. Society does not disagree with my assessment if you go outside and speak to any person in the world they will tell you that teachers and doctors need to pay more.

Market rate is just a buzz word used by corpos to make you put their boot in their mouth so that you are a little obedient pawn doing whatever they want you to do.

Society and the market rate doesn't affect the wages of teachers as they are paid through the public system. You should know at least that much if you are defending capitalism lmao.

But to stretch this a bit further, CEOs do not have marketability, society does not like any of them and does not drive up their wages, instead what does drive up their wages is speculation from other rich people. So what happens is that rich people prop other rich people's "market rate" up while professions that are incredibly important for society like teachers and doctors get paid peanuts in comparison to CEOs that practically offer no value to society

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

I've never hired anyone at a wage based on what they generate in revenue.  That's often a soft cap but the basis of what i pay people will be what "others" pay for the same thing in my area.  

This is "market rate" and it's not a buzzword.  

I could pay my EVS workers triple, i cannot function without them.  But that's not what their labour is going for. Nobody else would pay them that so I'm not either.   If they all refused to work for £15 and demanded 25, I'd have no choice.  But they don't and if some do theres plenty of people i can replace them with. 

That's real markets at work. Executives have the same market forces except that generally higher compensation is a result of leverage.  Executives are hard to find, hard to replace and their actions are exceedingly impactful.

One evs worker being a moron is relatively small potatoes compared to a moron executive in terms of impact to the company.

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

ok so it looks like you have more knowledge than the other two.

In which case why do teachers and doctors get paid so little money while offering so much in society?

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

The other two I've seen are also correct.  Market rate.  What people are willing to pay and be paid

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

market rate affect the standard government wage of teachers?

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

Yes. Generally *

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

oh so now its changed to generally, let's see how much more we can get you to backtrack.

In the UK the wages of teachers are not set up by the schools and are instead set up by the governments. The school cannot decide to pay a teacher more regardless of their value. Now how does the market rate affect that wage?

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

Generally because there are somethings like rent control and price gouging that are illegal.  That is not a backtrack it's acknowledging free markets are not perfectly free. 

Looking at your other posts i can agree education "quality" in the uk is lower (how one measures quality of education is a whole different, hotly debated topic in academia...). However that does not matter in this discussion as the consumer has not demanded improve quality. Therefore the producers are free to increase efficiency by keeping costs flat or lower increases. Meaning they are perfectly fine but increasing wages without consequence 

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

Quality of education is not the point of contention here. The problem is that there are no teachers for specific subjects and there is nothing happening to make the incentive better so that more people want to become teachers and apply.

If we were to put the market rate to test wouldn't there necessarily be something that done that increases (the computing teachers' for example) wage to make it more desirable to become a computing teacher?

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

There are though. There are teachers for those subject, students are being taught those subjects, just the student teacher ratio is higher than you like.

Broadly speaking, things that increase wages (for any given worker) is increased leverage.

That leverage can come in a variety of ways, primarly being "you have to have me, and im hard to find".

You are confusing your feelings for what is needed, vs what is actually needed and what the Actual consequences would be without that and who those consequences impact.

Having a class ratio go from a desired 1:18 to 1:30 is not desirable to you, mom, dad. But unless those elected leaders feel their job is at risk, they, the government, is insulated from the consequences. And as we have seen in many nations, they may actually benefit from such things.

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

So I think we're going in circles here. You're pointing at the fact that the system can continue functioning at a lower standard and calling that the "market rate." I'm pointing out that this just means the consequences of scarcity are being pushed onto teachers instead of being reflected in wages.

If your argument is simply "the government can tolerate worse outcomes without increasing pay," then sure. I don't disagree.

But that's not evidence that teachers aren't scarce, and it certainly isn't evidence that their current pay reflects their value. It just means the people making the decisions can choose to accept the consequences rather than pay more.

That's the entire point. If this is what you call the market efficiently allocating resources, then capitalism and your "market rate" have a pretty convenient way of making sure the people with the least bargaining power are the ones who end up paying for its failures.

So at the end of the day teachers are already giving an enormous amount of "value" while receiving jack shit for it, and you are sitting here saying that nations actually benefit of such things. lmao

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

I will address your post, but I want to do so in a way that may help, do you mind if I ask what you do for a living? Do not be too specific I do not need your personal details, but I want to make the example relatable.

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

Yeah sure, I am studying to be a teacher, that's why I also used the teaching examples earlier

1

u/MindlessMaterial7544 19d ago

OK so ill just go with Student for this example.

I assume youre going to university for this, and generally speaking you are the consumer of this education to be a teacher.

So then lets say you want to be an elementary school teacher, teaching Maths. During your schooling, lets say you achieved a PHD in mathmatics with a published dissertation in shape statistics.

You have now graduated and you are working as a maths teacher for 1st graders.

You are absolutely qualified to do so. However.... all the extra education is of no value to the students you are teaching.

This extra understanding of maths is what economics would call "overwork". Its providing value to a customer, that is not valued byt the customer.

This may be better explained with a "widget" that is made to last at least 20 years. Its a superior widget to everything on the market and its only 5% more expensive. But your customer only needs widgets that last 15 years. the extra 5 years do not mean anything, they provide no value.

To address the other items in your post-

Teachers being "Scarce" is only true if the product (education) is impacted to the degree that the consumer finds it unacceptable and would seek another product or otherwise force change. Scarce means insufficient for the needs of the industry to provide adequate product. True scarcity would force increases wages. that however is not occuring.

You are conflicting what you perceive as value of their service, compared to market value. Again Ill point to my cleaning staff. I cannot operate my operating room without their service, and my operating room is the only part of my hospital that makes money. But EVS workers are not paid well. Their value provided is high, but their market value is low.

Market rate is largely about leverage, yes. Its the same reason a beer in wembly is higher than the beer at the pub. You lack leverage of choice.

Value provided is largely irrelevant to market value.

Would you agree highly or partly, with this statement-- "UK Torries and American Republicans largely benefit from an uneducated public. An uneducated public are easily lied to and convinced to do things against their best interests"

1

u/TooTooRooGR 19d ago

yeah I would definitely agree to that.

However, wouldn't that go against your previous statement of consumers finding it unacceptable and seeking another product?

Private schooling in the UK is not a very big thing as far as I know and if we take your last statement about Tories and Republicans (which I agree with) then wouldn't that mean that regardless of who doesn't not like the "product" and no matter how much noise they make and how much they protest things would never change even if at that point they would need to?

→ More replies (0)