Current Events > At what point in the history of humanity did we start majorly overpaying people

(+) Yeah! (+)

who do "jobs" that (arguably) have zero net value to society, while paying those who do the most important jobs (teachers, doctors, farmers, etc) amounts that are hardly even a measurable fraction of what the overpayed folk make

Such as athletes who play a game for a living, or movie stars, or the Kardashian family, the list is endless but you get the idea - people who, in my opinion, have little to no positive impacts on society, whose professions are completely and utterly expendable and not a necessity to the human race, etc

I highly doubt that it's always been the case that the richest of the rich were people who do nothing but play a game all day or those who set out to entertain others. Somewhere in our massive timeline, we started doing this. Does anyone actually know how this sort of thing got started and became possible? Anyone out there with broad knowledge of the history of man?

Tbqh I think this is one of the most fucked up things about people and the world today, the fact that someone who is very athletic and skilled at a game invented by man can be paid an absolutely absurd amount of money, while someone who will directly save multiple human lives, or feed countless humans with his hard work, or someone who teaches people how to read and write, etc, makes fucking nothing by comparison

And they say humans are the most intelligent animal on this planet?
---

the beginning

Athletes, movie stars, musicians, etc. are paid a lot of money because they bring in a lot of money
take LeBron James for instance, he's gonna bring in a lot of money for the Lakers through increased merch and ticket sales. why shouldn't he get paid that much? you'd prefer some random exec to get that money floated to them?
---

Atheletes and celebrities entertain people.
---

prince_leo posted...

Athletes, movie stars, musicians, etc. are paid a lot of money because they bring in a lot of money
take LeBron James for instance, he's gonna bring in a lot of money for the Lakers through increased merch and ticket sales. why shouldn't he get paid that much? you'd prefer some random exec to get that money floated to them?

Yeah, this makes sense.

So, we have ourselves as a collective whole to blame.
---

PikachuMaxwell posted...

Atheletes and celebrities entertain people.

Farmers feed people. Doctors save people. Teachers teach people.
---

Omnislasher posted...

the beginning

Exactly. Didn't the Greeks pay athletes a shit ton in the coliseum?
---

Connections, bureaucracy, and the extremely played out spoils of war (like royal bloodlines) have been a thing for thousands of years.
---

vicedungwinsgam posted...

Such as athletes who play a game for a living, or movie stars, or the Kardashian family

they create demand.

cry more.
---

You might be interested in this book, in which the author posits that there's a sort of inverse relationship between a job's social value and how much one can expect to be paid for it: https://www.amazon.com/dp/150114331X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_PPRsBbQ8VDA14

In a perverse sort of way, he argues, society treats the obviously fulfilling, socially necessary jobs as being "their own reward", and therefore it would be gauche to expect good pay, too. Doctors are like the one exception to the rule.
---

Farmers, doctors, and teachers are throwing their money at athletes and celebrities. Why should they refuse getting paid?

PikachuMaxwell posted...

Atheletes and celebrities entertain people.

If people were to give up watching sports and start playing them as a hobby, the net effect of that on society would be a net positive

Like TC said, the expendable jobs are paid the most
---

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/01/18/the-highest-paid-athlete-of-all-time-was-a- roman-charioteer-if-he-had-lived-today-he-would-have-been-worth-15-billion/
link broken in half
---

It's really weird when people try and devalue fun especially other peoples fairly common idea of fun
---

awesome999 posted...

If people were to give up watching sports and start playing them as a hobby, the net effect of that on society would be a net positive

Sure, more people playing sports would be great for their health, if nothing else. I think the money spent there would just shift to some form of entertainment or pleasure, though. People could play more video games, watch more movies, spend on dates and such. I really doubt that money would shift into investments or savings.
---

prince_leo posted...

Athletes, movie stars, musicians, etc. are paid a lot of money because they bring in a lot of money

Simple as that
---

around 5000 years ago
---

Capitalism, baby!
---

Sada_Pop posted...

prince_leo posted...

Athletes, movie stars, musicians, etc. are paid a lot of money because they bring in a lot of money

Simple as that

---

because years of govt decision making that resulted in public jobes having no money to pay reasonable salaries. mostly through shitty budgets I guess that was sold as "low taxes"
---

I'd also note that athletes didn't start getting big money until the 70s with free agency.
---

if you built a company yourself from the ground up, and it became so successful that it runs itself and earns hundreds of millions of dollars in net revenue, are you not entitled to it all? Why is it "overpaying" when its all yours?
---

Garioshi posted...

PikachuMaxwell posted...

Atheletes and celebrities entertain people.

Farmers feed people. Doctors save people. Teachers teach people.

Supply and demand. There are loads of teachers / doctors out there. Not many people as good as lebron
---

Garioshi posted...

PikachuMaxwell posted...

Atheletes and celebrities entertain people.

Farmers feed people. Doctors save people. Teachers teach people.

Lebron James produces way more wealth and while most people can be farmers, a dozen people at most could potentially play at his level.

The second we invented payment
---

mattnd2007 posted...

Omnislasher posted...

the beginning

Exactly. Didn't the Greeks pay athletes a shit ton in the coliseum?

Greeks
the Coliseum

Seriously?
---

These discussions always confuse me. Should the teachers be getting paid millions of dollars, or should the actors and athletes get a throttled salary? In either case, where should the money come from or go? Teachers will probably teach thousands of students over their lifetime. The work of actors and athletes will be be watched by millions and billions over their lifetimes. It's very simple to see why some get paid way more than others.

remember that athletes still work for higher-ups that make way more money than they do, and that money is essentially being stolen from them. they're still working class.

it can vary with people in the arts (actors, musicians, etc) because most are self-employed, and therefore middle class
---

Because the only "important" jobs that exist are the ones we can't find enough people to do. The more people that apply for a job, the lower the wage.

Annihilated posted...

Because the only "important" jobs that exist are the ones we can't find enough people to do. The more people that apply for a job, the lower the wage.

Which is a skewed metric of importance. As I'm sure you meant to say with the use of your ""s
---

scar the 1 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Because the only "important" jobs that exist are the ones we can't find enough people to do. The more people that apply for a job, the lower the wage.

Which is a skewed metric of importance. As I'm sure you meant to say with the use of your ""s

Well yes, because there's value to society and then there's value to employers. They're two entirely different things. But since it's employers that drive the economy, employers determine wages. If it were any other way, there would be a lot of wasted money and businesses would be broke and people would be out of jobs.

Annihilated posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Because the only "important" jobs that exist are the ones we can't find enough people to do. The more people that apply for a job, the lower the wage.

Which is a skewed metric of importance. As I'm sure you meant to say with the use of your ""s

Well yes, because there's value to society and then there's value to employers. They're two entirely different things. But since it's employers that drive the economy, employers determine wages. If it were any other way, there would be a lot of wasted money and businesses would be broke and people would be out of jobs.

I'm not convinced. Nor am I convinced that there isn't a lot of wasted money right now :)
---

Annihilated posted...

If it were any other way, there would be a lot of wasted money and businesses would be broke and people would be out of jobs

are you suggesting that this isn't currently the case?
---