The Highest Valued Work

[Zeluvia]

Thinking about how humans value work.

Postulate: We value those that take responsibility and make decisions for others. We value the work of leaders above all.

Discuss.

 

[Valjean]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thinking about how humans value work.

Postulate: We value those that take responsibility and make decisions for others. We value the work of leaders above all.

Discuss.

Because it's a rare skill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

No. Even with competent workers you need someone whose job it is to see the bigger picture.

Consider: I know how to write code. I have *NEVER* had a boss that had anything like my knowledge of how to do it, they can provide no leadership at all in terms of programming. What they can and do provide is the information on what code it would be most beneficial to the company to write.

 

[Zeluvia]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Sorry, but its a fact. Leaders throughout history and in any situation, from tribal to team, get more perks and pay than any other worker in the group.

 

[Eric H]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Sorry, but its a fact. Leaders throughout history and in any situation, from tribal to team, get more perks and pay than any other worker in the group.

In the UK, some footballers get paid more than the prime minister. It seems even Mr Obama is not worth a great deal; compared to people in the entertainment industry.

 

[Zeluvia]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Sorry, but its a fact. Leaders throughout history and in any situation, from tribal to team, get more perks and pay than any other worker in the group.

In the UK, some footballers get paid more than the prime minister. It seems even Mr Obama is not worth a great deal; compared to people in the entertainment industry.

Good point. And a fairly recent phenomena.

 

[ryan]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Sorry, but its a fact. Leaders throughout history and in any situation, from tribal to team, get more perks and pay than any other worker in the group.

In the UK, some footballers get paid more than the prime minister. It seems even Mr Obama is not worth a great deal; compared to people in the entertainment industry.

I disagree; value shouldn't just be measured by salaries. The job and person representing the President or Prime minister are both valued much higher than a football player. If a missile was sent to hit Obama, and a missile was sent to hit a football player, and there is only one intercepting missile ready, which missile do you think will be intercepted?

Furthermore, the leader of a team like a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, usually will end up with greater salaries, endorsements and fame than the rest of the players. In sports, they call it "leading by example".

 

[Eric H]

ryan;
Furthermore, the leader of a team like a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, usually will end up with greater salaries, endorsements and fame than the rest of the players. In sports, they call it "leading by example

Fine, but they should not earn more than the president of the USA, or a lot more than a doctor.

 

[ryan]

ryan;
Furthermore, the leader of a team like a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, usually will end up with greater salaries, endorsements and fame than the rest of the players. In sports, they call it "leading by example

Fine, but they should not earn more than the president of the USA, or a lot more than a doctor.

the quirks of capitalism

 

[Bronzeage]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Could you build a pyramid with 10,000 workers who knew their jobs, but no leaders?

 

[rousseau]

There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.

By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?

 

[Bronzeage]

There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.

By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?

The payment of a CEO and it's relationship to performance is something of a special case. It's sort of like the laws of Galileo's Mechanics, compared to Newton's gravity. Galileo found the mathematical relationships caused by the force of gravity, but he only observed gravity as it acts between a very tiny mass and the mass of the planet. The Earth's gravity is so great, it dwarfs any gravitational pull I might have due to my own mass.

The bank teller and the computer programmer are paid on the same basic principle, which is, "the lowest possible pay which will attract a competent pool of workers." The teller is being paid to do a task. The pay is set high enough to attract those who can add and subtract competently. The pay does not really reflect the hazard of screwing up. The same is true for programmers. They are paid to write programs and the pay will be high enough to attract a pool of "good enough" programmers. If there are four competent programmers for every open position, programmers maybe paid less than tellers.

The pay of some CEO's is fairly high, compared to the teller or programmer. Part of this is due to the small pool of applicants. This pool is kept artificially low. There are a lot of social reasons for this, which do not follow economic reasons. Again, the pay is not high because of the risk of bankruptcy. The pay is high because there is only one CEO in the company. Whatever happens, seems to be caused by his presence and he gets rewarded for the illusion.

 

[rousseau]

There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.

By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?

The payment of a CEO and it's relationship to performance is something of a special case. It's sort of like the laws of Galileo's Mechanics, compared to Newton's gravity. Galileo found the mathematical relationships caused by the force of gravity, but he only observed gravity as it acts between a very tiny mass and the mass of the planet. The Earth's gravity is so great, it dwarfs any gravitational pull I might have due to my own mass.

The bank teller and the computer programmer are paid on the same basic principle, which is, "the lowest possible pay which will attract a competent pool of workers." The teller is being paid to do a task. The pay is set high enough to attract those who can add and subtract competently. The pay does not really reflect the hazard of screwing up. The same is true for programmers. They are paid to write programs and the pay will be high enough to attract a pool of "good enough" programmers. If there are four competent programmers for every open position, programmers maybe paid less than tellers.

The pay of some CEO's is fairly high, compared to the teller or programmer. Part of this is due to the small pool of applicants. This pool is kept artificially low. There are a lot of social reasons for this, which do not follow economic reasons. Again, the pay is not high because of the risk of bankruptcy. The pay is high because there is only one CEO in the company. Whatever happens, seems to be caused by his presence and he gets rewarded for the illusion.

The CEO gets paid a lot of money because he or she has a lot of responsibility, which was the point I was making. As you move upward in a hierarchy you have power relations between superiors and inferiors. The only way an inferior can be promoted into a position of more responsibility is if they are trusted with that responsibility. As they move up the chain the decisions they make have a more significant impact on the organization and so they are compensated well to give them incentive to make the right decisions.

The idea that a CEO's impact is an illusion may be true in some cases, but in most cases it's probably not. Consider a one man operation running a web design business. He/She owns the organization, and every thought process that goes through his or her mind directly impacts the success of the business. Bad marketing? Business fails. Bad work? Business fails. The same concept applies to one man or woman with a huge amount of power over a large organization. Smart decision making can make or break the future of the company.

 

[Nexus]

The ex-presidents making $350,000 a pop for speaking engagements should give a more accurate view of how much they're valued.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.

By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?

The payment of a CEO and it's relationship to performance is something of a special case. It's sort of like the laws of Galileo's Mechanics, compared to Newton's gravity. Galileo found the mathematical relationships caused by the force of gravity, but he only observed gravity as it acts between a very tiny mass and the mass of the planet. The Earth's gravity is so great, it dwarfs any gravitational pull I might have due to my own mass.

The bank teller and the computer programmer are paid on the same basic principle, which is, "the lowest possible pay which will attract a competent pool of workers." The teller is being paid to do a task. The pay is set high enough to attract those who can add and subtract competently. The pay does not really reflect the hazard of screwing up. The same is true for programmers. They are paid to write programs and the pay will be high enough to attract a pool of "good enough" programmers. If there are four competent programmers for every open position, programmers maybe paid less than tellers.

The pay of some CEO's is fairly high, compared to the teller or programmer. Part of this is due to the small pool of applicants. This pool is kept artificially low. There are a lot of social reasons for this, which do not follow economic reasons. Again, the pay is not high because of the risk of bankruptcy. The pay is high because there is only one CEO in the company. Whatever happens, seems to be caused by his presence and he gets rewarded for the illusion.

The CEO gets paid a lot of money because he or she has a lot of responsibility, which was the point I was making. As you move upward in a hierarchy you have power relations between superiors and inferiors. The only way an inferior can be promoted into a position of more responsibility is if they are trusted with that responsibility. As they move up the chain the decisions they make have a more significant impact on the organization and so they are compensated well to give them incentive to make the right decisions.

The idea that a CEO's impact is an illusion may be true in some cases, but in most cases it's probably not. Consider a one man operation running a web design business. He/She owns the organization, and every thought process that goes through his or her mind directly impacts the success of the business. Bad marketing? Business fails. Bad work? Business fails. The same concept applies to one man or woman with a huge amount of power over a large organization. Smart decision making can make or break the future of the company.

Suppose there were a hundred people equally qualified and willing to handle the responsibility of being CEO? The responsibility is not diminished, but the pay certainly will be.
Pay is not based on the difficulty of the job. If this were so, the guy who lifts full trash cans over his head, 1500 times a day would be better paid. Pay depends upon only one direct factor, how many people can do the job and are willing to do it. The pay offered for any job will rise until a sufficient pool of qualified people appear.

 

[rousseau]

There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.

By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?

The payment of a CEO and it's relationship to performance is something of a special case. It's sort of like the laws of Galileo's Mechanics, compared to Newton's gravity. Galileo found the mathematical relationships caused by the force of gravity, but he only observed gravity as it acts between a very tiny mass and the mass of the planet. The Earth's gravity is so great, it dwarfs any gravitational pull I might have due to my own mass.

The bank teller and the computer programmer are paid on the same basic principle, which is, "the lowest possible pay which will attract a competent pool of workers." The teller is being paid to do a task. The pay is set high enough to attract those who can add and subtract competently. The pay does not really reflect the hazard of screwing up. The same is true for programmers. They are paid to write programs and the pay will be high enough to attract a pool of "good enough" programmers. If there are four competent programmers for every open position, programmers maybe paid less than tellers.

The pay of some CEO's is fairly high, compared to the teller or programmer. Part of this is due to the small pool of applicants. This pool is kept artificially low. There are a lot of social reasons for this, which do not follow economic reasons. Again, the pay is not high because of the risk of bankruptcy. The pay is high because there is only one CEO in the company. Whatever happens, seems to be caused by his presence and he gets rewarded for the illusion.

The CEO gets paid a lot of money because he or she has a lot of responsibility, which was the point I was making. As you move upward in a hierarchy you have power relations between superiors and inferiors. The only way an inferior can be promoted into a position of more responsibility is if they are trusted with that responsibility. As they move up the chain the decisions they make have a more significant impact on the organization and so they are compensated well to give them incentive to make the right decisions.

The idea that a CEO's impact is an illusion may be true in some cases, but in most cases it's probably not. Consider a one man operation running a web design business. He/She owns the organization, and every thought process that goes through his or her mind directly impacts the success of the business. Bad marketing? Business fails. Bad work? Business fails. The same concept applies to one man or woman with a huge amount of power over a large organization. Smart decision making can make or break the future of the company.

Suppose there were a hundred people equally qualified and willing to handle the responsibility of being CEO? The responsibility is not diminished, but the pay certainly will be.
Pay is not based on the difficulty of the job. If this were so, the guy who lifts full trash cans over his head, 1500 times a day would be better paid. Pay depends upon only one direct factor, how many people can do the job and are willing to do it. The pay offered for any job will rise until a sufficient pool of qualified people appear.

I don't think we're saying different things. As you increase the level of responsibility you are also (usually) increasing difficulty and the pool of able people goes down. You're right that people would pay lower if they could, but the tendency for high wage for high skill is still there.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Not true. Many good young workers need guidance, correction, and praise when warranted. I've seen good and bad leadership and good workers go bad because of bad or absent leadership. If a worker, especially a young ambitious one busts his/her ass to do a good job and the supervisor/manger does not even take the time to review the work, the worker will eventually get discouraged and transition to just doing enough to collect a paycheck. It's called mentoring and a good leader should be able to leave on a moments notice and his mentee (I hate that word) protégé can fill the void without skipping a beat.

I recall and interview with Irwin Jacobs, the CEO of Qualcomm with the San Diego Union Tribune about immigrant visas. To paraphrase his comments: We sponsor students from other countries, bring them here on student visas, after school they get work visas and are allowed to work in the US for a total of six years. Just when they are at their most productive, we send them back.

 

[fromderinside]

Any worker who needs leadership doesn't know his job.

Not true.

Eyup. Sally told her employee Tom to produce a baby. Not gonna happen.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is a direct correlation between value and responsibility. The more you are responsible for, the more what you do matters, and the more your work is valued.

By having one off day the bank teller turns off a single customer and the bank loses 1000 dollars in profit. By introducing a massive bug in a system the software developer causes the bank to lose tens of thousands in profits. By steering the bank in the wrong direction the CEO causes the entire organization to go defunct. Who gets paid the most?

The payment of a CEO and it's relationship to performance is something of a special case. It's sort of like the laws of Galileo's Mechanics, compared to Newton's gravity. Galileo found the mathematical relationships caused by the force of gravity, but he only observed gravity as it acts between a very tiny mass and the mass of the planet. The Earth's gravity is so great, it dwarfs any gravitational pull I might have due to my own mass.

The bank teller and the computer programmer are paid on the same basic principle, which is, "the lowest possible pay which will attract a competent pool of workers." The teller is being paid to do a task. The pay is set high enough to attract those who can add and subtract competently. The pay does not really reflect the hazard of screwing up. The same is true for programmers. They are paid to write programs and the pay will be high enough to attract a pool of "good enough" programmers. If there are four competent programmers for every open position, programmers maybe paid less than tellers.

The pay of some CEO's is fairly high, compared to the teller or programmer. Part of this is due to the small pool of applicants. This pool is kept artificially low. There are a lot of social reasons for this, which do not follow economic reasons. Again, the pay is not high because of the risk of bankruptcy. The pay is high because there is only one CEO in the company. Whatever happens, seems to be caused by his presence and he gets rewarded for the illusion.

The CEO gets paid a lot of money because he or she has a lot of responsibility, which was the point I was making. As you move upward in a hierarchy you have power relations between superiors and inferiors. The only way an inferior can be promoted into a position of more responsibility is if they are trusted with that responsibility. As they move up the chain the decisions they make have a more significant impact on the organization and so they are compensated well to give them incentive to make the right decisions.

The idea that a CEO's impact is an illusion may be true in some cases, but in most cases it's probably not. Consider a one man operation running a web design business. He/She owns the organization, and every thought process that goes through his or her mind directly impacts the success of the business. Bad marketing? Business fails. Bad work? Business fails. The same concept applies to one man or woman with a huge amount of power over a large organization. Smart decision making can make or break the future of the company.

Suppose there were a hundred people equally qualified and willing to handle the responsibility of being CEO? The responsibility is not diminished, but the pay certainly will be.
Pay is not based on the difficulty of the job. If this were so, the guy who lifts full trash cans over his head, 1500 times a day would be better paid. Pay depends upon only one direct factor, how many people can do the job and are willing to do it. The pay offered for any job will rise until a sufficient pool of qualified people appear.

I don't think we're saying different things. As you increase the level of responsibility you are also (usually) increasing difficulty and the pool of able people goes down. You're right that people would pay lower if they could, but the tendency for high wage for high skill is still there.

This is a confusion of correlation and cause. An unneeded skill or an over abundant skill will pay little.