Upper Education: Signalling or Learning

[Loren Pechtel]

OK, let just make one thing clear. Middle management is paid more not because it's such a difficult job which requires years in college and training. They are paid more because they could cost more if you pay them less. They would start stealing if they are not paid enough.

Being a good manager isn't that common a skill. That's why it pays more.

 

[barbos]

OK, let just make one thing clear. Middle management is paid more not because it's such a difficult job which requires years in college and training. They are paid more because they could cost more if you pay them less. They would start stealing if they are not paid enough.

Being a good manager isn't that common a skill. That's why it pays more.

Bad managers are paid the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Being a good manager isn't that common a skill. That's why it pays more.

Bad managers are paid the same.

Good managers are far more likely to be promoted into a higher (and better paying) position.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Bad managers are paid the same.

Good managers are far more likely to be promoted into a higher (and better paying) position.

Yep, they get promoted. But it is like ordinary employees, something it doesn't always happen, but over time it will.

 

[ksen]

Bad managers are paid the same.

Good managers are far more likely to be promoted into a higher (and better paying) position.

lol, good one

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

OK, let just make one thing clear. Middle management is paid more not because it's such a difficult job which requires years in college and training. They are paid more because they could cost more if you pay them less. They would start stealing if they are not paid enough.

Being a good manager isn't that common a skill. That's why it pays more.

So all the managers get paid more because only a small subset of them are good. Paying everyone the same amount, regardless of performance, sounds like communism for corporations.

 

[ronburgundy]

Bad managers are paid the same.

Good managers are far more likely to be promoted into a higher (and better paying) position.

From the employer perspective being a "good" manager mostly means increasing profits by taking as much as possible from workers and customers and giving as little as possible in return. IOW, it means a lack of ethics and decency moreso than any extra skills. Companies strongly discourage "fraternization" between managers and workers precisely because they want mangers to be able to treat workers poorly without sympathy. Companies use large discrepancies in pay between managers and their workers to increase the social/personal/professional divide between them, which better enables the kind of worker-harming decisions companies want managers to make. Similarly high salaries create a loyalty to the company because the manager has more to lose if they don't tow the line. That makes them more willing to violate their own ethics in the decision making. In sum, high manager salaries are often less of a legit reward for work they are capable of doing, and more of a bribe to make them more willing to do dirty work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good managers are far more likely to be promoted into a higher (and better paying) position.

From the employer perspective being a "good" manager mostly means increasing profits by taking as much as possible from workers and customers and giving as little as possible in return. IOW, it means a lack of ethics and decency moreso than any extra skills. Companies strongly discourage "fraternization" between managers and workers precisely because they want mangers to be able to treat workers poorly without sympathy. Companies use large discrepancies in pay between managers and their workers to increase the social/personal/professional divide between them, which better enables the kind of worker-harming decisions companies want managers to make. Similarly high salaries create a loyalty to the company because the manager has more to lose if they don't tow the line. That makes them more willing to violate their own ethics in the decision making. In sum, high manager salaries are often less of a legit reward for work they are capable of doing, and more of a bribe to make them more willing to do dirty work.

Good management is far more a matter of making things work smoothly.

 

[ronburgundy]

From the employer perspective being a "good" manager mostly means increasing profits by taking as much as possible from workers and customers and giving as little as possible in return. IOW, it means a lack of ethics and decency moreso than any extra skills. Companies strongly discourage "fraternization" between managers and workers precisely because they want mangers to be able to treat workers poorly without sympathy. Companies use large discrepancies in pay between managers and their workers to increase the social/personal/professional divide between them, which better enables the kind of worker-harming decisions companies want managers to make. Similarly high salaries create a loyalty to the company because the manager has more to lose if they don't tow the line. That makes them more willing to violate their own ethics in the decision making. In sum, high manager salaries are often less of a legit reward for work they are capable of doing, and more of a bribe to make them more willing to do dirty work.

Good management is far more a matter of making things work smoothly.

"Smoothly" in this context just means with the greatest profitability. There are many ways of making things "smoother" from the execs perspective that are harmful to workers, consumers, and the general public, especially when those people are misled into not realizing that harm (one of the key duties of any "good" manager). Managers get promoted by demonstrating that increasing company profits are the sole determinant of their decisions and actions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Good management is far more a matter of making things work smoothly.

"Smoothly" in this context just means with the greatest profitability. There are many ways of making things "smoother" from the execs perspective that are harmful to workers, consumers, and the general public, especially when those people are misled into not realizing that harm (one of the key duties of any "good" manager). Managers get promoted by demonstrating that increasing company profits are the sole determinant of their decisions and actions.

there are definitely some managers who get promoted on that, but for most it's about having the wide variety of skills and decision making that is needed. Not sure just a bottom line.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

there are definitely some managers who get promoted on that, but for most it's about having the wide variety of skills and decision making that is needed.

Do you have some statistics that show this alleged "most?"

 

[ronburgundy]

"Smoothly" in this context just means with the greatest profitability. There are many ways of making things "smoother" from the execs perspective that are harmful to workers, consumers, and the general public, especially when those people are misled into not realizing that harm (one of the key duties of any "good" manager). Managers get promoted by demonstrating that increasing company profits are the sole determinant of their decisions and actions.

there are definitely some managers who get promoted on that, but for most it's about having the wide variety of skills and decision making that is needed. Not sure just a bottom line.

The higher up in the system you are, and the higher your pay relative to those doing the real hands-on production of the goods and services, the more profits are expected to be your sole concern. The larger companies that have the biggest pay differentials have their higher paid people engaged in the managing of managers and cutting of "waste", where "waste" is often things that benefit workers, customers, and the public, but don't add to profits (and mostly to short term profits).

 

[coloradoatheist]

there are definitely some managers who get promoted on that, but for most it's about having the wide variety of skills and decision making that is needed. Not sure just a bottom line.

The higher up in the system you are, and the higher your pay relative to those doing the real hands-on production of the goods and services, the more profits are expected to be your sole concern. The larger companies that have the biggest pay differentials have their higher paid people engaged in the managing of managers and cutting of "waste", where "waste" is often things that benefit workers, customers, and the public, but don't add to profits (and mostly to short term profits).

Yes it is a big part, but only a part. If you were to go out and start your own business what things would have you have to worry about?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you were to go out and start your own business what things would have you have to worry about?

Whether or not I know the right kind of people to help: to hire, to get funding from, to get corporate welfare, etc...,

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you were to go out and start your own business what things would have you have to worry about?

Whether or not I know the right kind of people to help: to hire, to get funding from, to get corporate welfare, etc...,

It's a wide variety of skills with understanding everything, your product, your distribution, sales, marketing, financing, hiring, all human resources, budgeting, etc. There is a ton of things to worry about, though corporate welfare is the lowest And as you go up the food chain, the more you have to worry about all the things combined, not just your small piece in the cog. It's the ones that understand and make the right decisions with regard to everything that make it to the top.

 

[fromderinside]

It's the ones that understand and make the right decisions with regard to everything that make it to the top.

Officer, officer. This guy's on something real bad. Think roulette wheel.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's the ones that understand and make the right decisions with regard to everything that make it to the top.

Officer, officer. This guy's on something real bad. Think roulette wheel.

Is it the understanding that managers just sit around and just decide who they are going to fire?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good management is far more a matter of making things work smoothly.

"Smoothly" in this context just means with the greatest profitability. There are many ways of making things "smoother" from the execs perspective that are harmful to workers, consumers, and the general public, especially when those people are misled into not realizing that harm (one of the key duties of any "good" manager). Managers get promoted by demonstrating that increasing company profits are the sole determinant of their decisions and actions.

While I have not actually been management I have always worked pretty closely with them--and the only things I've seen that are detrimental to the workers were preventing abuse. Basically all improvements in output came from reducing wasted time & materials.

Now, sometimes the workers didn't like the improvements because they weren't an improvement in their eyes. One that was a repeated point of conflict was do the job at the top of your screen, not the job that's most convenient or the job you would like to be working on. The workers saw looking for the right job rather than doing what was in front of them as waste--but if they did things that way a job that got slightly misplaced would sit until someone went hunting for it--and that would make it late to the jobsite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Officer, officer. This guy's on something real bad. Think roulette wheel.

Is it the understanding that managers just sit around and just decide who they are going to fire?

Of course. There's no way they could be making decision based on the big picture the average person isn't looking at! That would imply the average worker isn't the smartest one around, that's intolerable! Therefore it must be that they are making stupid decisions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whether or not I know the right kind of people to help: to hire, to get funding from, to get corporate welfare, etc...,

It's a wide variety of skills with understanding everything, your product, your distribution, sales, marketing, financing, hiring, all human resources, budgeting, etc. There is a ton of things to worry about, though corporate welfare is the lowest And as you go up the food chain, the more you have to worry about all the things combined, not just your small piece in the cog. It's the ones that understand and make the right decisions with regard to everything that make it to the top.

No, it's having the right resources, including people and connections. You actually don't have to understand all the technical details of each business area.