Certainly you can deny it. In my view, however, if the system has differential compensation, that meets my definition of "build in".
Okay, but I don't think it's something that happens passively or as some kind of natural consequence.
Hmmm. Are you being purposefully disingenuous? Let's look at your approach below.
Why would you say that? Don't you think it's rather whimsical and arbitrary for someone to just decide whose work is more valuable or should cost more without any real justification or explanation other than "just because they can"? You think I'm being disingenuous for recognizing it for what it is and calling it out?
What's interesting is that, when the rubber meets the road, the pro-capitalist crowd really has no answer to this point (and it's not as if I haven't invited them to give one). There is no rational, practical justification for such disparities, other than whimsy. I see this as a self-evident truth.
Your first mistake is that while many a traffic flag holder may have a High School diploma, it is by no means a pre-requisite for the job. In fact, I would think it wouldn't even require an elementary level education or even literacy. If society allowed, children as young as 8 or 9 can likely manage.
If society allowed, then a lot of things would change. The bulk of the discussion about capitalism and socialism is answering the question: What should society allow?
But okay, let's say he's a high school dropout or only has an eighth grade education. The example would still work.
Next we have the reality that while just about everyone can manage as a traffic flag holder, not everyone will be equally adept at heart or brain surgery. The work differential involved in qualifying even to go to college, let alone medical school after that, probably can be said to begin in middle school. Given the high stakes involved in heart and brain surgery and the limited number of each needed by society, we want to attract the most capable into these jobs, not merely those willing to go through the motions during the requisite years of training. High grades as the measure of high competency are required necessitating higher effort starting in middle school. This high work demand continues through college and into medical school and then into residency. Each level requiring a record of high achievement and an interview process for entry into the next level, with the number of available slots diminishing at each successive level. As to medical residencies, surgical specialties require 5-7 years of residency, 7 would be the number for our brain surgeon. So if we count schooling required after 6th grade, we are talking an additional 21 years for our brain surgeon. But let's take your number of 1.8333 * $15 to equal a wage of $27.50 per hour for the brain surgeon.
You expect someone to go through all that hard work and competitive stress for 21 years to only earn $27.50 an hour? No one we want doing those surgeries is going be remotely interested in such a compensation scheme.
Well, it was a rather contrived comparison to begin with, so I was just thinking of one possible measure in order to answer your question, especially since a common justification for these disparities involves claims that the skill levels are equally disparate. Taken to its logical conclusion, comparing the number of years of school and associating that with the purported skill levels makes sense, in the absence of any other hard information or input.
But it's not really so cut-and-dried as comparing a traffic flag holder to a brain surgeon. The dollar amounts are really just numbers. You ask if I expect someone to go through all the hard work and stress of becoming a brain surgeon for only $27.50 per hour? In the United States right now, I wouldn't expect that. I was just using that as a measure to compare it with the figures you were using either. We're just comparing numbers here. As you say, it takes a lot of hard work to become a surgeon, so I'm not begrudging them any of that.
In essence, I agreed with your basic premise that, due to the surgeon's greater skill and education, they should earn more than the traffic flag holder. Whether that disparity should be 1.83 times higher or 26.67 times higher seems to be where there might be disagreement. What about 10 times higher? Would that be enough to attract enough people to become brain surgeons, or should it be higher?
And what about these "diminishing available slots" you mention? In a country where it's being routinely reported that there are shortages in the medical profession, why on earth would they be intentionally limiting the number of available slots? They should be doing just the opposite and trying to get as many trained doctors and nurses as needed by society. It might be argued that they warrant high salaries because their skills are so rare and in high demand, but as a society, we have to ask ourselves why that's the case? Why aren't there enough skilled people available?
I can't believe it's because there aren't enough people willing or capable of learning it, not in a country where over half of the adult population has a college degree. But as you say, there are only a few slots available, and it's also so prohibitively expensive and takes so many years. That's also something that might be examined. Does it really need to take that long? I've heard some suggestions of fast-tracking and compressing medical education so the medical schools can educate and train doctors in less time.
If you consider your suggestion as remotely plausible, we can leave the discussion here and agree to disagree.
ETA: I forgot to highlight that after all that hard work to become a qualified heart or brain surgeon, the job itself entails long hours, the stress of peoples lives on the line, and the continual requirement of study to stay abreast of changes and improvement to the medical field. Much different than that of our flag holder.
There is a saying, "You get what you pay for." I would think about that in this context.
Actually, a traffic flag holder does serve an important public safety function, and it's a job that someone has to do. If that someone is a human being, then the bottom line is that human being has rights. Ultimately, that's what we have to ask ourselves: What kind of society do we want to live in? It's not really about how much money anyone makes, but whether or not we have a genuine desire to adhere to the principles of human rights and the basic idea that every human being has value and worth.
We didn't always believe in such principles, much less practice them. But many people seem to believe that we've evolved and become more enlightened in the modern age. And there is a great deal of truth to that. But there's still a lot more work to do in that department.
My grandfather and a lot of people of his generation went through the Depression and had a pretty strong work ethic. They tended to believe in capitalism - or at least the basic principles of the free market system. But they also believed in the value and dignity of work. They did not countenance those they regarded as "bums" or "lazybones." Everyone had to work, in their minds. But those who did work deserved respect and fair recompense. Even if they're a traffic flag holder.
That's one thing that does bother me about the general attitude which can often be displayed in these kinds of discussions - not so much here on RF, but elsewhere I've seen. It's the idea that people who do menial or unskilled jobs are somehow deserving of scorn, ridicule, or mockery. I'm not saying that you've done anything of the sort, and it's even kind of rare on RF, although sometimes I suspect it might be an unspoken idea bubbling under the surface. I would just see it as further indication that we still have a long ways to go before our civilization can ever claim any real enlightenment. I worry that we might be regressing to some degree.
