I have always been wondering this question - why is 'management' and 'higher ups' who only 'approve' this and that, be paid higher than the actual doers? Any explanations? Or is this the bane and hand-over of capitalism? If it were a socialistic setup, would things be done by group consensus? (as in a start up)?
Why is management paid higher than the monkey troupe?
- Thread starter FifthDimension
- Start date
Urghs...
I used to think that way when I was still one of the lowly code monkeys.
It takes some growing up to change that perspective.
And it also takes some strength not to become an asshole manager.
That said, I still fight nails and teeth for worker rights whenever possible. And I still do not understand the greed mindset found in a lot of managerial and banking types.
::emp::
I used to think that way when I was still one of the lowly code monkeys.
It takes some growing up to change that perspective.
And it also takes some strength not to become an asshole manager.
That said, I still fight nails and teeth for worker rights whenever possible. And I still do not understand the greed mindset found in a lot of managerial and banking types.
::emp::
Being a higher up isn't leveraging in and of itself. Being higher up is a different skillset from "doers". Management has a more specialized role in the division of labor, which is why they are placed above less specialized roles, and given higher remuneration.
In private enterprise, being the boss means you are the one providing capital. You pay workers for work today, and if you take a loss at the end of the fiscal year, your workers still got paid. You get all of the upside if there are profits, and you get all of the downside if there are losses.
Workers settle for a lower wage so they can be paid immediately and not have to share in the risk of the business. Because they have to be paid now, there is a premium in finance costs to pay workers all the way through until profit is realized. If you didn't have to pay workers now, you could invest your own capital for a return elsewhere, or you could borrow less and have lower service costs.
/wage labor economic lesson in 3 paragraphs
In private enterprise, being the boss means you are the one providing capital. You pay workers for work today, and if you take a loss at the end of the fiscal year, your workers still got paid. You get all of the upside if there are profits, and you get all of the downside if there are losses.
Workers settle for a lower wage so they can be paid immediately and not have to share in the risk of the business. Because they have to be paid now, there is a premium in finance costs to pay workers all the way through until profit is realized. If you didn't have to pay workers now, you could invest your own capital for a return elsewhere, or you could borrow less and have lower service costs.
/wage labor economic lesson in 3 paragraphs
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c]YouTube - Like A Boss (ft. Seth Rogen) - Uncensored Version[/ame]
Even after reading division of labour and economics concepts and about 'different skillsets' being the cause of the remuneration difference, I still feel it is quite unfair. Division of labor? - yes, but it is not on the same terms - some people have nothing to do but sit in meetings, approve things, and dont have to sweat it out. That is not fair.
Different skillsets? - yes, but they areboth equal, whoever did the division of skillsets or division of labor, needs to think that division of labor means remunerating managers and workers alike. Working is as much a hard skillset as managing is. This may be a revolutionary or retarded thinking, the way you look at it, but then so is socialism.
In any case, what would you call an economy based on free contribtions to the society? As in, collective efforts going into making a common product that is being used free by all (as in open source)
american socialism? social america? whatever?
Different skillsets? - yes, but they areboth equal, whoever did the division of skillsets or division of labor, needs to think that division of labor means remunerating managers and workers alike. Working is as much a hard skillset as managing is. This may be a revolutionary or retarded thinking, the way you look at it, but then so is socialism.
In any case, what would you call an economy based on free contribtions to the society? As in, collective efforts going into making a common product that is being used free by all (as in open source)
american socialism? social america? whatever?
Communism.
Everyone contributes for free and the contributions are owned by the community.
As I said, fifth, it is hard to understand, but it really is a different skillset. The crux of the matter is that there are very few people capable of being a manager.
As with everything, the law of supply and demand takes hold. Manager material being a scarce resource = it is more expensive.
This also applies to other skillsets. Excellent baseball players = expensive, good acting = expensive, excellent programmers = expensive,... the list goes on and on and on.
The method to getting more money is to become good at what you do, and have what you do something only a few people can do or only a few people can do at that level.
::emp::
Everyone contributes for free and the contributions are owned by the community.
As I said, fifth, it is hard to understand, but it really is a different skillset. The crux of the matter is that there are very few people capable of being a manager.
As with everything, the law of supply and demand takes hold. Manager material being a scarce resource = it is more expensive.
This also applies to other skillsets. Excellent baseball players = expensive, good acting = expensive, excellent programmers = expensive,... the list goes on and on and on.
The method to getting more money is to become good at what you do, and have what you do something only a few people can do or only a few people can do at that level.
::emp::
I'm wondering if you have heard of supply and demand?
If everybody was capable of being a higher up they wouldn't get paid as much.
If higher ups got paid the same as the people below them what incentive would there be to take risks or spend time trying to be a higher up. There wouldn't be any innovation.
In short you have no clue what you are talking about.