ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
LG4NB, interesting perspective. I guess I tend to look at things like this in terms of the simple economic models, you are looking at them in a much more philosophical way. I'm not sure the end result is much different though.
I may not convey this well, but that won't keep me from trying . I'm thinking the whole supply/demand thing *is* a reflection of societies values, and maybe the best reflection that we have?
and that is where the demand side comes back into play. There *is* demand for doctors <insert any high paid profession>, and high 'barriers to entry' (smarts, education, time, $, motivation) - so that leads to high pay.
I get the sense that people miss the supply/demand thing when I see phrases like 'they get to charge....'. It doesn't work that way. I could invest a bunch of time and money in learning some skill that has no demand, and I wouldn't 'get to charge' anything for it. People pay what they need to, for doctors or ditch-diggers.
I hope none of this came across as 'argumentative' (seems I can't tell) - I appreciate discussion with people with different views, I need a fresh outlook from time to time.
-ERD50
I may not convey this well, but that won't keep me from trying . I'm thinking the whole supply/demand thing *is* a reflection of societies values, and maybe the best reflection that we have?
... just because not many people might want to be or even could be a doctor still gives no reason by itself as to why they get paid so much. you can argue supply and demand but, ...
you can argue it is because they have to pay a few $100k for schooling and so therefore they get to charge a few $mm later ...
and that is where the demand side comes back into play. There *is* demand for doctors <insert any high paid profession>, and high 'barriers to entry' (smarts, education, time, $, motivation) - so that leads to high pay.
I get the sense that people miss the supply/demand thing when I see phrases like 'they get to charge....'. It doesn't work that way. I could invest a bunch of time and money in learning some skill that has no demand, and I wouldn't 'get to charge' anything for it. People pay what they need to, for doctors or ditch-diggers.
Yes, with lower barriers to entry, salaries (on average) would go down. But, there is no free lunch, so since we would be part of the system that paid for the education, it sounds like a circle to me. Unless that system creates *more* doctors, then prices could come down, but that is just supply/demand again.another system's values might, say, pay for the doctor's schooling and then maybe high prices aren't quite so justified.
There are plenty of example in society. Many people take jobs that don't pay well, but they are doing something they love, or something that they feel is very needed and appreciated. 'Total compensation' is certianly not measured only in $'s. Most people give to charities, and don't try to measure the profit margin.doing what they just happen to have a talent for and consider that their contribution to this shared society. consider doctors without borders; what is their profit margin?
No doubt.sure, systems spin off secondary values, but it is the primary ones which set up that system of trade in the first place and i suspect they leave telltale signs in salaries of particular careers.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is someone (a gov't?) going to determine who can own private artworks or not? I don't think I'd like that intrusion into my life. Now, if a private collector tried to buy up every renoir in the world so no one else could enjoy them - well, I'd bet museums would be able to raise money to keep them - that would show the value to society. BTW, the Art Institute in Chicago *is* free this whole month - I got there and enjoyed the Renoirs, among others.just what is the price of your renoir in a world where only the highest bidder gets to enjoy it privately? what does it say of the value of that system. now what is the price of that very same renoir where nobody gets to bid but instead it is placed in a museum where everyone can enjoy it for free? what does it say of the value of that system?
Yes, I agree that capitalism is a mirror. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, and I certainly don't know anything to replace it.capitalism is nothing more than a mirror of a set of values. i know how to live in that mirror but i do not care to be trapped there.
I hope none of this came across as 'argumentative' (seems I can't tell) - I appreciate discussion with people with different views, I need a fresh outlook from time to time.
-ERD50