GUNWOUNDS Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 Here is a list of 10 jobs from Capitalist USA where people are getting paid more than what they deserve....these are the only people Edrico should have a problem with...10) Wedding photographers Photographers earn a national average of $1,900 for a wedding, though many charge $2,500 to $5,000 for a one-day shoot, client meeting and processing time that runs up to 20 hours or more, and the cost of materials. The overpaid ones are the many who admit they only do weddings for the income, while quietly complaining about the hassle of dealing with hysterical brides and drunken reception guests. They mope through the job with the attitude: "I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls." Much of their work is mediocre as a result. How often have you really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Photographers who long for the day they can say "I don't do weddings" should leave the work to the dedicated ones who do. 9) Major airline pilots While American and United pilots recently took pay cuts, senior captains earn as much as $250,000 a year at Delta, and their counterparts at other major airlines still earn about $150,000 to $215,000 - several times pilot pay at regional carriers - for a job that technology has made almost fully automated. By comparison, senior pilots make up to 40 percent less at low-fare carriers like Jet Blue and Southwest, though some enjoy favorable perks like stock options. That helps explain why their employers are profitable while several of the majors are still teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The pilot's unions are the most powerful in the industry. They demand premium pay as if still in the glory days of long-gone Pan Am and TWA, rather than the cutthroat, deregulated market of under-$200 coast-to-coast roundtrips. In what amounts to a per-passenger commission, the larger the plane, the more they earn - even though it takes little more skill to pilot a jumbo jet. It's as much the airplane mechanics who hold our fate in their hands. 8.) West Coast longshoremen In early 2002, West Coast ports shut down as the longshoremen's union fought to preserve generous health-care benefits that would make most Americans drool. The union didn't demand much in wage hikes for good reason: Its members already were making a boatload of money. Next year, West Coast dockworkers will earn an average of $112,000 for handling cargo, according to the Pacific Maritime Association, their employer. Office clerks who log shipping records into computers will earn $136,000. And unionized foremen who oversee the rank-and-file will pull down an average $177,000. Unlike their East Coast union brethren who compete with non-union ports in the South and Gulf of Mexico, the West Coast stevedores have an ironfisted lock on Pacific ports. Given their rare monopoly, they can disrupt U.S. commerce -- as they did during the FDR years -- and command exorbitant wages, even though their work is more automated and less hazardous than in the days of "On the Waterfront." 7) Skycaps at major airports Many of the uniformed baggage handlers who check in luggage at curbside at the busiest metro airports pull in $70,000 to $100,000 a year -- most of it in cash. On top of their salaries, peak earners can take in $300 or more a day in tips. Sound implausible? That amounts to a $2 tip from 18 travelers an hour on average. Many tip more than that. While most skycaps are cordial, a good many treat customers with blank indifference, knowing harried travelers don't want to brave counter check-ins, especially in the post 9/11 age. 6) Real estate agents selling high-end homes Anyone who puts in a little effort can pass the test to get a real estate agent's license, which makes the vast sums that luxury-home agents earn stupefying. While most agents hustle tail to earn $60,000 a year, those in affluent areas can pull down $200,000-plus for half the effort, courtesy of the fatter commissions on pricier listings. Luxury home agents live off the economy's fat, yet many put on airs as if they're members of the class whose homes they're selling, and eye underdressed open-house visitors as if they're casing the joint. 5) Motivational speakers and ex-politicians on the lecture circuit Whether it's for knighted ex-Mayor Rudy Guiliani or Tom "In Search of Excellence" Peters, corporate trade groups pay astronomical sums to celebrity-types and political has-beens to address their convention audiences. Former President Reagan raised the bar back in 1989 when he took $2 million from Japanese business groups for making two speeches. Bill Clinton earned $9.5 million on 60 speeches last year, though most of those earnings went to charity and to fund his presidential library. The national convention circuit's shame is that it blows trade-group members' money on orators whose speeches often have been warmed over a dozen times. 4) Orthodontists For a 35-hour workweek, orthodontists earn a median $350,000 a year, according to the Journal of Clinical Orthodontics. General dentists, meanwhile, earn about half as much working 39 hours a week on average, in a much dirtier job. The difference in their training isn't like that of a heart surgeon vs. a family-practice doctor. It's a mere two years, and a vastly rewarding investment if you're among the chosen: U.S. dental schools have long been criticized for keeping orthodontists in artificially low supply to keep their income up. This isn't brain surgery: Orthodontists simply manipulate teeth in a growing child's mouth -- and often leave adjustment work to assistants whose handiwork they merely sign off on. What makes their windfall egregious is that they stick parents with most of the inflated bill, since orthodontia insurance benefits cover nowhere near as large a percentage as for general dentistry. 3) CEOs of poorly performing companies Most U.S. chief executives are vastly overpaid, but if their company is rewarding shareholders and employees, producing quality products of good value and being a responsible corporate citizen, it's hard to take issue with their compensation. CEOs at chronically unprofitable companies and those forever lagging industry peers stand as the most grossly overpaid. Most know they should resign -- in shareholders' and employees' interest -- but they survive because corporate boards that oversee them remain stacked with friends and family members. The ultimate excess comes after they're finally forced out, usually by insiders tired of seeing their own stock holdings plummet. These long-time losers draw multimillion-dollar severance packages as a reward for their failed stewardship. 2) Washed-up pro athletes in long-term contracts Pro athletes at the top of their game deserve what they earn for being the best in their business. It's those who sign whopping, long-term contracts after a few strong years, and then find their talents vanish, who reap unconscionable sums of money. NBA player Shawn Kemp, for instance, earned $10 million in a year he averaged a pathetic 6.1 points and 3.8 rebounds a game. Atlanta Braves pitcher Mike Hampton earned $9.5 million -- in the second year of an eight-year, $121 million contract -- while compiling a 7-15 won-loss record for the Colorado Rockies with a pitiful earned-run average of 6.15. Thank the players' unions for refusing to negotiate contracts based on performance -- and driving up the cost of tickets to levels unaffordable for a family of four, especially for football and basketball. They point to owners as the culprits, yet golf star Tiger Woods and tennis champ Serena Williams earn their keep based on their performance in each tournament. 1) Mutual-fund managers Everyone on Wall Street makes far too much for the backbreaking work of moving money around, but mutual fund managers are emerging as among the most reprehensible. This isn't kicking 'em when they're down, given the growing fund-industry scandal. They've been long overpaid. Stock-fund managers can easily earn $500,000 to $1 million a year including bonuses -- even though only 3 in 10 beat the market in the last 10 years. Now we discover an untold number enriched themselves and favored clients with illegally timed trades of fund shares. That's a worse betrayal of trust than the corporate scandals of recent years, since they're supposed to be on the little person's side. Put aside what fund managers earn and consider their bosses. Putnam's ex-CEO Lawrence J. Lasser's income rivals the bloated pay package that sparked New York Stock Exchange President Dick Grasso's ouster. Lasser's take: An estimated total of $163 million over the last five years. ;)
Anathema Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 Completely agree about CEO's being overpaid, and not just of bad running companies. Over here people get rather angry over that workers have to do with less money while the directors still get huge pay checks.
nemafakei Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 "3) CEOs of poorly performing companies "Not entirely. Some CEOs may be doing a very good job with a bad lot. Likewise, CEOs of lucky companies might be making bad decisions and/or doing no work, their company doing fine without them, and still be paid far too much.
Dante Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 Is 'capitalistic' even a word? Besides, what about others, such as governmental, computer-based, oil tycoons, that kind of thing? I find it heard to believe that they earn less than any of those ten.
Egeides Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 Hey Gunwounds, do you know more about orthodontist being supplied in low volume to keep incomes high? I'm curious about the structure that permits them to do this.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 31, 2004 Author Posted March 31, 2004 Hey Gunwounds, do you know more about orthodontist being supplied in low volume to keep incomes high? I'm curious about the structure that permits them to do this.availability of dentistry schools and admission rates....they are far pickier than any medical school....
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 31, 2004 Author Posted March 31, 2004 Is 'capitalistic' even a word? Besides, what about others, such as governmental, computer-based, oil tycoons, that kind of thing? I find it heard to believe that they earn less than any of those ten. you missed the point dustscout.... this thread is about people who dont do crap... but get paid a ton... such as the skycap (luggage boy) making 100,000.... absurd...but a computer progammer making tons of money or an oil tycoon making money is different as they actually provide a vital service that is worth paying for and is proportional to the work performed...also you mentioned government jobs?... hahahah what a joke.. everyone knows that government jobs pay less that the private sectors.... the president of the United States only gets a salary of 200,000 ... same as the longshore dockmen listed above... and i would wager that the president has a more important job... of course the president gets benefits but we are talking cold cash here in this thread as fringe benefits cant be calculated accurately.
Dante Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 It's getting easier and easier to get into the old 'high paid' jobs, such as those who are, ahem, "vital to the community."Hense less people choose the grimier jobs, like the "luggage boy," thus there are fewer of them around, thus 1) They are paid more for doing more work and 2) They are paid more to attract other people back into the job. Makes sense to me.
Terror Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 well i agree mostly. Governmental jobs aren't realy that great if you want to make a lot of money. Politicians (ministers) in the Netherlands don't earn that much, yet they create our policy.I think that if you make a lot of money because your own company is doing so well, then I think you just were lucky/did a good job and so i cannot complain, hower that i call profit from your organisation. But if you get millions each year as SALARY for running your company to the ground, that is rediculous. Also sportsmen like Formula 1 drivers who get 15 million dollar a year (or more), or actors who receive a million each episode, now that is just plain rediculous.But ofcourse, if you are the best at something, you can demand a lot of money as those sponsors/companies will pay it, simply because you are the best and those companies/sponsors benefit from it too.long story in not too good written english, but that's what happens if people don't let me write in dutch ::)
Egeides Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 Besides, it's not necessarily easy to become a RESPECTED (thus paid alot) mutual fund manager. If you take only the top-5%, well it's no surprise that they are paid alot because of the type of job they do: producing money...
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 31, 2004 Author Posted March 31, 2004 Besides, it's not necessarily easy to become a RESPECTED (thus paid alot) mutual fund manager. If you take only the top-5%, well it's no surprise that they are paid alot because of the type of job they do: producing money...the reason why mutual fund managers are listed here as being overpaid is because over the last 10 years only 30 percent of them have done a good job and beat the market.... the rest have lost money or made very little....so they are getting paid tons of cash while they are making
Wolf Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 I admire the will-power Edric is exercising to stay away from this.
Wolf Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 I believe he has, although, now that you mention it, I cannot be sure.
GUNWOUNDS Posted April 1, 2004 Author Posted April 1, 2004 I admire the will-power Edric is exercising to stay away from this.what exactly ....i wonder... would he have to add to this thread ?
GhostHunter Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 Perhaps something that doesn't exist in it to begin with?
filecore Posted April 2, 2004 Posted April 2, 2004 long story in not too good written english, but that's what happens if people don't let me write in dutch
Edric O Posted April 3, 2004 Posted April 3, 2004 I admire the will-power Edric is exercising to stay away from this.Actually, Dust Scout is right. I haven't been online since this topic was posted. And I believe that staying away from it would be a misuse of will-power - I strongly disagree with those who back away from a messy argument because they don't want to get their hands dirty.Now, Gunwounds, I really find it funny how you whine and complain about various people getting paid a few thousand dollars more than they deserve, but you don't seem to find anything wrong with billionaires who receive hundreds of millions of dollars without lifting so much as a single finger.Sure, wedding photographers may be overpaid, but when was the last time wedding photographers put a US President into office, or took over the economy of a small country? How many wedding photographers or airport luggage boys are there in the top 1000 richest people in the world? How many orthodontists have personal fortunes that exceed the GDP of Pakistan?but a computer progammer making tons of money or an oil tycoon making money is different as they actually provide a vital service that is worth paying for and is proportional to the work performed...The computer programmer, yes. But what "vital service" is the oil tycoon providing? His employees do all the work, while he smokes fine cigars and receives tons of money for doing nothing.No one denies the fact that most of the super-rich actually worked in the beginning in order to get their business started. The problem is that they're not working any more NOW, but they are receiving obscenely large sums of money from the work of their employees.
nemafakei Posted April 4, 2004 Posted April 4, 2004 "No one denies the fact that most of the super-rich actually worked in the beginning in order to get their business started."With the exception of inherited money, of course.
GUNWOUNDS Posted April 5, 2004 Author Posted April 5, 2004 "No one denies the fact that most of the super-rich actually worked in the beginning in order to get their business started."With the exception of inherited money, of course.well if his ancestors were the creators and innovators of something then he rightfully deserves the inheritance.If i created something fantastic that makes me rich i would like for my great great grandchildren to benefit from it as well.
Edric O Posted April 5, 2004 Posted April 5, 2004 well if his ancestors were the creators and innovators of something then he rightfully deserves the inheritance.No he doesn't. Why should he be rewarded for something other people did?If i created something fantastic that makes me rich i would like for my great great grandchildren to benefit from it as well.Just because you'd want it, that doesn't make it right.Your great great grandchildren had NO CONTRIBUTION WHATSOEVER to your invention/creation/whatever. They did not earn a single cent of your fabulous wealth.Children should not be rewarded (or punished) for the achievements (or failures) of their parents. That means rewarding/punishing a person for what another person did, which is blatantly wrong and immoral.
GUNWOUNDS Posted April 5, 2004 Author Posted April 5, 2004 No he doesn't. Why should he be rewarded for something other people did?Just because you'd want it, that doesn't make it right.Your great great grandchildren had NO CONTRIBUTION WHATSOEVER to your invention/creation/whatever. They did not earn a single cent of your fabulous wealth.Children should not be rewarded (or punished) for the achievements (or failures) of their parents. That means rewarding/punishing a person for what another person did, which is blatantly wrong and immoral.its not a political or economic attribute Edrico... it is a biological one... people want their offspring to be taken care of.If me
GUNWOUNDS Posted April 5, 2004 Author Posted April 5, 2004 Children should not be rewarded (or punished) for the achievements (or failures) of their parents. That means rewarding/punishing a person for what another person did, which is blatantly wrong and immoral.i thought you were a christian.... obviously you should know that the opposite is true....
Edric O Posted April 6, 2004 Posted April 6, 2004 its not a political or economic attribute Edrico... it is a biological one... people want their offspring to be taken care of.Yes, and sex is also a biological function. That doesn't justify rape.You cannot justify something by saying "it's natural". The whole purpose of having civilization in the first place is to free ourselves of the constraints imposed on us by nature. After all, murder is natural. It's the most natural thing in the world. Does that make it right?If me creating/innovating something causes me to become rich and makes it so my great great grandchildren and the rest of my bloodline never has to worry about poverty , starvation, etc , etc, ever again then that makes me "fit" in the biological sense in the greatest way possible.No, it doesn't. Your success was the result of artificial conditions created by human civilization - natural laws like "survival of the fittest" no longer apply.Your spark of genius doesn't make you "fit", because you owe that spark of genius to the work of millions of other people who came before you. Einstein couldn't have created the Theory of Relativity without someone to teach him physics in the first place. Or without someone to discover that physics. Or without someone to invent the alphabet so that knowledge about physics could be written down. And so on.No invention is the product of one man alone - except perhaps the spear or the wheel.i thought you were a christian.... obviously you should know that the opposite is true.... rethink your statement.the bible says that blessings and sins are passed from father to children.Hence we are born into original sin. Are you calling God blatantly wrong and immoral?I am calling YOU blatantly wrong and immoral if you want to play God.
GUNWOUNDS Posted April 6, 2004 Author Posted April 6, 2004 Yes, and sex is also a biological function. That doesn't justify rape.You cannot justify something by saying "it's natural". I am perfectly aware of that.... Emprworm has stated that many times before in his various threads so its not like your the first person to tell me this.
Recommended Posts