Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Looper

Profession and industry least deserving of higher salary.

31 posts in this topic

I think people marketing to rich people or selling luxury products shouldn't be earning too much.

Lets try not to talk about supply and demand but the societal value they provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in all western merchants catering to developed nation societies? It's all relative who's wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of a three tier system of pay. People who don't want to work are given enough to live. Those fuckers who are willing to show up and treat work like a social club should be paid a little more. Folks who bring legit value to organizations should be paid enough to make the cows want to perform at a higher level. Title should never be about more money, most people are more concerned with status in a very abstract form; they want more money so they can project status, I suspect they would blindly chase any carrot that offers the illusion of superiority. Wealth and poverty are the opposite sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in all western merchants catering to developed nation societies? It's all relative who's wealthy.

As in there is one society, and there are the super-rich, rich, middle, and poor classes. Those who I meant were those from the rich and super-rich who would overspend on anything expensive and not even flinch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore supply and demand. Those should earn the most.

If we have constant commissions/margins, like 10%, on a 20k car the seller earns 2k. on a 500k car he earns 50k.

WOW MATHS.

And of course serving rich people is harder and requires more skill, so it should earn more. Anyone can be fat ugly and dumb and work in a Wal-mart serving poor people, but not everyone can look like a model and have manners to work at Zegna. So if serving poor people all those high-end salesmen would apply to work at Wal-mart and the only available people to serve the rich would be the fat ugly retard that bags stuff at Wal-mart

DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE?

so yeah, let's forget demand and supply and use common sense. DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE THAT PEOPLE SERVING RICH PEOPLE EARN LESS?

---------- Post added 10-10-2016 at 09:48 PM ----------

BTW maybe people doing services in RICH NATIONS should receive less money than people servicing on poor nations. The americans working at wal-mart should receive what the guy working in Ma-poo-dali in Bangladesh (local ficticious retarded wal-mart) and vice-versa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in there is one society, and there are the super-rich, rich, middle, and poor classes. Those who I meant were those from the rich and super-rich who would overspend on anything expensive and not even flinch.
So you plan to penalise the people who are redistributing wealth from the wealthy by overcharging for luxury items and services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring supply and demand...

...lawyers make far too much because we have far too many laws.

...those who develop algorithms (quants) that attempt to scalp fractions of a cent off the trading markets are pretty much useless, wasting their advanced educations enriching a lazy few.

...Hollywood A-listers, top-level athletes, and reality-TV stars all make far too much for their respective contributions.

As in there is one society, and there are the super-rich, rich, middle, and poor classes. Those who I meant were those from the rich and super-rich who would overspend on anything expensive and not even flinch.

If a poor schmuck manages to con some rich douche out of serious money via means of an obnoxiously expensive bauble, more power to em!

2015-RR-Phantom-Drop-Head-Top-Down-e1444751310936-1940x1090.jpg

The jewelry and luxury automobile markets wouldn't exist if the wealthy had a strong sense of value. Humans love shinies!

Edited by eagleseven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2015-RR-Phantom-Drop-Head-Top-Down-e1444751310936-1940x1090.jpg

The jewelry and luxury automobile markets wouldn't exist if the wealthy had a strong sense of value. Humans love shinies!

Wow! That's a seriously beautiful car.

I mean, if I had a billion dollars, I'd consider buying a car like that, as then it wouldn't really make a difference to my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! That's a seriously beautiful car.

I mean, if I had a billion dollars, I'd consider buying a car like that, as then it wouldn't really make a difference to my money.

Rolls-Royces are a catch-22. Once you have enough money to easily afford one, you're more concerned with private islands, jets, and funding revolutions in third-world nations.

rollsroyce-phantom-2015-wallpaper-6.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

It doesn't *do* anything that a Corolla can't also do at 1/20th the price, but it sure is pretty!

Edited by eagleseven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a really tricky question when you drill down to the underlying principles.

If the underlying principle is that the amount you earn should be proportional to the value you contribute, then unfortunately it may be that beggars are least deserving of their salary/income. The amount they earn may be small, but the value they contribute is even smaller (I would say, about zero).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a really tricky question when you drill down to the underlying principles.

If the underlying principle is that the amount you earn should be proportional to the value you contribute, then unfortunately it may be that beggars are least deserving of their salary/income. The amount they earn may be small, but the value they contribute is even smaller (I would say, about zero).

Minus 5 to minus 10 seems more like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about most deserving of lower pay based solely on "societal value," we could be here all week. That is the point isn't it? Just completely get rid of bathroom attendants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2016 at 8:11 PM, Major Chord said:

It is a really tricky question when you drill down to the underlying principles.

If the underlying principle is that the amount you earn should be proportional to the value you contribute, then unfortunately it may be that beggars are least deserving of their salary/income. The amount they earn may be small, but the value they contribute is even smaller (I would say, about zero).

The problem is that unlike in Singapore, we give money to those who do not need it, while fighting to protect the very little the beggars get. 

 

A Coal industry executive just accused Elon Musk of being a fraud for taking subsidies. Yet his own industry subsidies absolutely dwarf the amount of subsidies given to Tesla or Solar City. Despite Solar just surpassing Coal in total output. 

 

Those who take so very much TO ACTIVELY INHIBIT SOCIETY are in no place to be shitting on beggars. They have negative worth to society. 

 

Only in the US can somebody become a billionaire by using subsidies to harm its own population. This is not something that is widely available outside the US. 

 

So your personal experience with the wealthy in Asia is unlikely to be the same as our experience in the US. The dynamics for success are dramatically different, and Asia is actually probably less corrupt in that sense. The government doesnt just hand the corrupt billions of dollars like they do openly in the US. 

 

I have nothing against the wealthy, but I do have something against the wealthy who get that way by harming others and forcing our own government to pay for it. That is unfair to the people who succeeded fairly. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can convince somebody to spend way more money than is necessary on a product that doesn't perform any better than the cheaper alternative then I say you earned it. Think any of us in here have the skills to do that? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recruiters and most HR people. In theory useful roles, in practice mostly incompetent people who can't do any other job and are given too much power. Recruiters especially have become nothing but an obstacle between employers and employees and seem to have zero ability to determine who would be a good employee or who will leave within 6 months. Also most managers - another class of mostly incompetent people who can't and don't do any actual work but are given power over people who do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lor6 said:

another class of mostly incompetent people who can't and don't do any actual work but are given power over people who do.

Might over skill is a timeless condition for human resource positions, people who show full obedience to authority. Ironically they are quite identical to authority, being cool-headed and not attempting to reinvent the wheel. You can't glue people together with moonstruck specialists, but I would agree that; sometimes the glue is too murky, perverted even, like a star imploding in sorrow, disposal is preferable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cak said:

If we're talking about most deserving of lower pay based solely on "societal value," we could be here all week. That is the point isn't it? Just completely get rid of bathroom attendants.

Yea, I've had bathroom attendants cracking my neck for relief, then some bouncers by the door prompting me to pay for the service, which I never agreed to. That happened in a club in Bangkok.

 

Let me add certain youtubers to the list. Just because they take up people's time watching their videos doesn't mean they are providing value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HR gets paid too much. 

Ambulance company owners get paid too much.  (The paramedics and EMTs staffing the ambulances actually get paid very little for those $800 twenty minute ambulance rides)

Investment bankers get paid way too fucking much, while subtracting more value from society than they add.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in finance, actors/actresses, models, and professional sports players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now