If money is a quantified token of value, what does it mean about society when game players (athletes) and pretenders (actors) are paid more than healers, farmers, and teachers?

Who says money is a quantified token of value?

What’s a healer? o_O;

For me says one thing, I shouldn’t have quit my modeling career, and yes, I’m with loser, money is not a quantified token of value… each profession has its reward ($) and the other kind of reward (how good you feel about what you do and how it contributes to the society), the second one is the one that matters most

@mega
Healer = witch doctor or something like that :s

With a nearly infinitesimal effort expended on looking up the numbers, I can tell you that in 2003, almost $1.7 trillion was spent on health care. While in 2005, the professional sports industry only saw about $213 billion. I didn’t roll in teachers and farmers. In that regard then, sports appears to garner a paltry sum in comparison.

See? Statistics are easy to manipulate to suit one’s objectives.

I personally reject your proposal that sports figures are valued more than other individuals. Their pay is simply reflected in supply & demand.

I didn’t know Witch Doctors got paid with quantified tokens.

Supply & Demand. Simply as that.

@Rob
Yep, supply and demand is what moves this place (world)

@rob
1.7 trillion on healthcare? Healthcare is a very vague term. Does this include insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies? Just an assumption, but I think by healer, wakeup meant doctors, whose average salary is around 125,000.

And while supply and demand do run this country, we must take a look at the small handful of companies that control the oh so important supply, which in turn allows them to manipulate prices and value.

and by professional sports I wasn’t just talking about athlete salaries.

A licensed medical doctor, after completing residency and all makes wa-a-a-y-y-y-y more than $125k/year.

My point was mainly that anyone can drive a conversation by twisting the statistics to suit his/her objective. Citing statistics without reference or, more importantly, context is often not a worthwhile endeavor.

If money is not a quantified token of value, what is it?

Things are worth as much as you are willing to pay for them. You earn tokens with your life, make no bones about it. You trade time for money. How many tokens you are willing to part with for something is dependent on how much you value it. “This item is worth x amount of tokens, which represent x amount of hours of my life, therefore, this item is worth x amount of my life.”

Do you value your life?

Average Salaries of MD’s in US(MD)/Salary

“A licensed medical doctor, after completing residency and all makes wa-a-a-y-y-y-y more than $125k/year.” Please provide a citation.

Healthcare is a very vague term as Chris6137 has mentioned. It encompasses more than the actual people doing the work. If my question used the “healthcare industry” and the “sports industry” instead of “actors and athletes” and “healers, farmers, teachers”, then your argument would less resemble a sieve.

You say “I personally reject your proposal that sports figures are valued more than other individuals. Their pay is simply reflected in supply & demand.”

Well, what exactly determines the “Demand” for a product? Hmmm, could it be, how much perceived value the product/service has to the potential marketplace?

(Illustrated example) Abbot Excludes Thailand From New Drugs. The basis of this argument is that Abbot feels its contribution to society (drugs) has a certain amount of value in that it can save lives and heal the sick. Supply and Demand is linked proportionally to this because most people value their lives enough to trade tokens in order to extend them or make them of higher quality.

However, in Thailand, most do not make enough tokens to trade for these medicines. As a result, Abbot does not have to give them anything, despite what flameboi said “each profession has its reward ($) and the other kind of reward (how good you feel about what you do and how it contributes to the society), the second one is the one that matters most”

Apparently, to Abbot, these suffering Thai people are less entitled to health because they don’t produce enough value (tokens) to trade for Abbot’s value (drugs). Abbot is concerned with increasing its ability to consume (spend tokens) much more than people being healthy and free from illness.

Making medicines is merely *a way to get more tokens * from this perspective, which is to say, conversely, if Abbot was actually in the pharmaceutical industry to CARE for and HELP people, it would not deny sick people necessary medications over a minor decrease in profits, as Abbot is already engorged with subsidies by those of us in the world who are able to and who have no problem affording their services. The capitalist motive is further elucidated by the fact that if the Controlled Substances Act were repealed, crack would carry a Big Pharma brand name. Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market

Therefore, the money an individual makes is determined by the “value” he brings in to society, and so he is rewarded, in kind, with tokens that represent that value.

The fact that so many people didn’t know what I meant by “healer” is a prime example of the Orwellian monopoly on language via the annotation/connotation dichotomy, but I digress.

Doctors salaries

As for the rest of it, you’re conflating disparate concepts.

My above link “Average Salaries of MD’s in US” is broken it should point to “http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)/Salary”

If still broken, this link will bring you to the search results for Average Salary MD

Simply click the first result to see the intended target of my above link.

Majority Society (the mob) will always prefer entertainment over substance… they always have and always will. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t see how to change it. I don’t agree with supply and demand either; Adam Smith, James Denham-Steuart, and David Ricardo were douche-bags.

We value athletes and actors more than we value healers, farmers and teachers. Why? Because we’re stupid and can’t appreciate the things that are more important.

Robmandu, the highest salary listed on the link you posted is $579,400 for an Orthopedic Surgeon specializing in the Spine, followed by Neurosurgeon at $530,000. (Or, as you put it, “wa-a-a-y-y-y-y more” than $125,000)

Compare that to the average salary for a Punter/Kicker on an NFL team $868,005. Nevermind the highest paid athletes.

Therefore, it can be concluded, the players on NFL teams with the least playing time, mere minutes a game, are paid nearly double that of the MD’s responsible for dealing with the most delicate, precise, and sensitive parts of the human body.

P.S. The psychological concept of transference is when a person projects what he perceives as his own inadequacies onto another subject/object. See:: _ “As for the rest of it, you’re conflating disparate concepts.“_ for an example of transference in situ.

“Majority Society (the mob) will always prefer entertainment over substance… they always have and always will. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t see how to change it.” Be an individual, instead of being part of a mob.

“We value athletes and actors more than we value healers, farmers and teachers. Why? Because we’re stupid and can’t appreciate the things that are more important.” – Best Answer Yet

I wasn’t going after this from a he’s-paid vs. she’s-paid perspective. I was pointing out a factual error in chris6137‘s statement where he said doctors only make $125k/year. I’m glad you agree with me that that statement was simplistic and too low.

My contribution here is that you’re using a specific set of statistics to bolster your argument… and that anytime someone does that, I think it’s worth questioning the context that those statistics come from. When put into comparison with overall revenue of the sports vs medicine industries, I think the argument could be made that there’s a mathematical probability that, if a person wants to make a decent living, or sell a successful product, they’re better off targeting the larger market.

I guess I’m glad you found an answer that suits you: Because we’re stupid and can’t appreciate the things that are more important.

But that obviously does not represent my viewpoint… at least not of the population as a whole. And I think your transparent attempt to engender your point here might conflict with the Fluther guidelines as “trolling, thinly masked propaganda.”

Entertainment is all that Americans really care about. Sports are everywhere. I bet most kids aspire to be famous athletes more than any other profession. Schools spend slot of their budgets not to mention man hours on sports programs and events. Celebrities influence our views on politics. The lowest paid professional athlete probably gets paid 5 times more than the people out there teaching our children, our future, to read and write. Sounds a little messed up if you ask me. I think we’re all to blame but more so the media and the companies offering the athletes/actors/celebs all that money. Think about it, if the teacher of the year in your town died in a horrible accident, you might hear about it once in the news but it won’t be as big of a deal if Kobe Bryant died tragically. The media has made these people our heroes, even though what they do is worth absolutely shit, we value it.

Headache. I have a headache.

This thread is very much related to my very first question on Fluther. In general, and for unexplained reasons, people value style over substance. That is a sad fact.

And Rob, as a practicing Infectious Diseases doctor, I can tell you that the average pay is far closer to $125,000 than $500,000 for most doctors. There are certainly outliers (like plastic surgeons, radiologists, etc.), but for the most part, doctors who practice bread and butter medicine are not obscenely wealthy. That said, no one can truly complain over a 6 figure compensation.

I understand what you were trying to do Robmandu, see this episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit: Numbers

However, you say, “I personally reject your proposal that sports figures are valued more than other individuals. Their pay is simply reflected in supply & demand.”

Since the error in this statement was quite clearly revealed, as Demand is a direct measure of Value, all you have done is back pedal to your numbers, which don’t even support the point you are trying to make (Sports stars are paid less than Doctors).

The very link YOU posted DISPROVES your own assertion. It is fact that sports players make, on average, more money than doctors.

You continue, “My contribution here is that you’re using a specific set of statistics to bolster your argument… and that anytime someone does that, I think it’s worth questioning the context that those statistics come from.”

I agree, 100%. Thorough analysis of my statistics and my argument will speak for itself.

” When put into comparison with overall revenue of the sports vs medicine industries, I think the argument could be made that there’s a mathematical probability that, if a person wants to make a decent living, or sell a successful product, they’re better off targeting the larger market.”

What exactly, does that have to do with the question? Its already been determined that we are NOT talking about “mathematical probability that, if a person wants to make a decent living, or sell a successful product, they’re better off targeting the larger market.” Why include this diversion from the topic, when trying to prove a point?

Are you hoping to trick people into not noticing the very elemental blunder you made early in your argument, by doing exactly what you claim others do, being uselessly verbose about topics that are NOT the topic at hand AKA “thinly masked propaganda”? Digression is great when it ties back and reinforces the initial argument. Your digressions, do not achieve this.

“People value style over substance”

I would like to expand on this. I find this statement to be true, yet when more closely examined, it is also paradoxical.

Style is a method of presentation which chooses the techniques it presents itself with in accordance with an ideological standard. I.e. fancy cars and clothes represent wealth, taste, luxury, social status, etc.

In other words, style is a promise about substance. (“I let my clothes, car, money, etc talk for me”) If someone looks wealthy, it is to be assumed they are. If someone looks poor, it is to be assumed that they are.

From an evolutionary perspective, this method of measuring is valid, as in ,“If this man is big and strong, he must be good at physical work, must be an adept hunter, etc. etc.”

However, in today’s society, how you look doesn’t necessarily state the substance of who you are with honesty.

In conclusion, this subconscious exalting of style as a greater indicator of potential substance than substance itself, is paradoxical and self – defeating. Like a hungry ghost , this philosophy deprives itself of what is necessary and healthy, in pursuit of that which is harmful and periphery.

Vanity is not only vain, its killing you.

(sigh)

@wakeup, Trolling as paraphrased from Wikipedia is “someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.”

I’d add to that definition what you’ve done here, which is to come into Fluther (a Question and Answer forum) with your own answers at the ready.

The point of your question here was not to gain knowledge, but only to share your views. In that way, I contend therefore that yours is not a genuine question.

It’s no wonder I’m not marching in line with you then.

—

@shilolo, I too have friends in the industry. One, who just completed her residency in a major metro area, is signing on with a private practice to the tune of $250K/yr. No, she’s not in neuro or ortho. But my anecdotal experience not withstanding, the link I provided above seems legit enough. Take from it what you will.

Your friend is lucky, but, compared to the pay of the 12th man on the bench of an NBA squad, or a special teamer getting the NFL league minimum, there is no comparison. Sports entertainment as a professional athlete is far more lucrative than medicine.

@shilolo, I think you might have missed an earlier statement of mine: When put into comparison with overall revenue of the sports vs medicine industries, I think the argument could be made that there’s a mathematical probability that, if a person wants to make a decent living, or sell a successful product, they’re better off targeting the larger market.

It is a little obtuse. In trying to write succinctly, it apparently waxed as “uselessly verbose”. Oh wells.

If you add up all of the doctors’ salaries and compare that number to all of the sports figures’ salaries, I think you’ll find that the grand total paid for doctors far exceeds that paid for athletes.

@Rob. What exactly is your point? The unit value placed on an individual doctor remains far lower than the unit value for a professional athlete. As another example, consider this. If you add up the salaries of all the blue collar workers in the automotive industry and compare that to all of the CEOs, I think you will find that the grand total paid for blue collar workers far exceeds that paid for CEOs. Are blue collar workers really valued more than the CEOs then?

Repeating myself is getting old. My point was that statistics can be twisted to suit one’s needs.

@shilolo, do you honestly measure your self-worth based only on your take-home pay?

Of course you don’t.

Do you think that I, and everyone else here as members of society, only consider your importance in terms of your salary?

Of course you don’t. Because we don’t.

And at the risk of repeating myself again, that’s why I reject the premise of this entire Question.

Rob If you are not willing to get back to the topic at hand, most likely because your too busy looking up the definition of “trolling”. I don’t believe wakeup was giving his opinion on his question as you are suggesting. He is simply refuting your incessant need to argue the question is a valid one to ask. We are taking it as a given that the market is large, and that because of this you make more money. Allow me to explain.

You keep quoting that rant you provided above about statistical probability. BTW, the fact that you use that line of argument, after arguing that statistics are subjective is lovely. The questioin asked by wake up was “why” is this the case. Not to prove that it is the case. You speak about wanting to make a “decent” living or sell a “successful” product. As a result of your opinion on this topic, you are saying what is MORE decent & successful is not medicine but sports. You see the large “demand” or “market” as you call it is nothing more than the opinions of the masses. It is because people = “market” are shallow and greedy that there is a large market for a Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton. I would argue either of their lifestyles are very “decent” but they are lucrative. Thus, the substantial increase in tokens for participating in football kicking then medical school. What the question is asking is why is the “statistical probability” such that this is the case? or as you put it because the market is large. You see the market is large for sports because we value them more.

As for your half answer, “If you add up all of the doctors’ salaries and compare that number to all of the sports figures’ salaries, I think you’ll find that the grand total paid for doctors far exceeds that paid for athletes.” We can conclude from this that you still haven’t learned to use math to your advantage. What are you going to say next? That the reason the pornography industry makes more than the organic farming industry is because there are more perverts than people who don’t like to eat pesticides? We are asking why there is a market for Athletes at all, or at least enough of one for any of them to make more than the average guy per year?
Because we are stupid still holds up as best answer.