Infamously, Will MacAskill circa 2013 sold Sam Bankman-Fried on the idea of “earn to give,” the (now largely deprecated) EA idea that you can be “more effective” in helping the world by getting a high-paying finance job than by getting your hands dirty as something as ignoble as a doctor or a teacher.
"
Of course, doctors are actually pretty high paying jobs. Teachers aren't. So not sure why they are lumped together as ignoble opposites to high-paying finance jobs. Maybe because blood is dirty? But I think slush funds are even dirtier personally.
Some may think doctors are paid more because they are valued more by society than teachers. But I don't think so. I think what society values is not the same as what capitalism values.
Both teachers and doctors make lots of sacrifices. So that's not so different. Both teachers and doctors will get feedback from those who receive their services saying their service was life-changing and meaningful and will never be forgotten. That's not much different either.
So what's different? Starting capital requirements and delayed pay out.
There are always outliers. That inner city kid who won the national science fair and then gets the full ride scholarship with room and board. But really, most doctors need enough of a social net to afford all that education and ideally-temporary debt, for which many will only be able to pay the principal on for a number of years. Teachers require their own education, but it's not likely to be so grueling for so many years. And you likely don't need to be rich enough to afford the loan. (Only rich people being able to afford borrowing is yet another case of it being expensive to be poor.)
The barriers for entry are much less and seeing the rewards--as intangible as they are--of students improving and showing their appreciation are so much sooner. The kind of doctor that really makes money will have to wait a long time to put their skills into practice and have a patient tell them something like "thank you for saving my life."
A conservative might think, well, they both deserve it, the doctor for their wealth and the teacher for their poverty. One took the long term reward, the other the short term. Of course the long term reward should be bigger/better. But the opportunity for trying for either is not the same. Fewer can even /try/ to be a doctor. So to consider one role more deserving is on par with predestination and so called “prosperity gospel.”
Capitalism in its cold, predictable way says, well, less people are becoming doctors, which means less supply, meaning higher price. That's all it does. Thus to capitalism, it “values” doctors more. And then because of capitalism, and teachers being paid less, teachers end up with more hardship in the long run. Which means capitalism makes teachers feel very concretely how unvalued they are. Though there are plenty of times society stands up to capitalism, this is not one of them.
What about high-paying finance jobs? So, same starting capital requirements and delayed pay out. But they pay even better than doctors. Why? Because doctors at least eventually get to receive gestures of society's love for them. Not finance jobs, because the high-paying ones are all being paid to keep money away from society in general. And keep it for the already rich, whose lives never change, as they generally are born richer than doctors or finance people. So, less of this intangible societal reward. And, thus, even less supply of them. And, thus, even greater “value” by capitalism. And basically none by society.
If society was in charge, they'd tax the hell out of these fiance guys, and their clients, and subsidize teachers so they don't have to eat dog food when they are 80. Instead it looks like teachers won't even get that at this rate. All food, all of everything, will instead be going to the dog(e)s.
"
Infamously, Will MacAskill circa 2013 sold Sam Bankman-Fried on the idea of “earn to give,” the (now largely deprecated) EA idea that you can be “more effective” in helping the world by getting a high-paying finance job than by getting your hands dirty as something as ignoble as a doctor or a teacher.
"
Of course, doctors are actually pretty high paying jobs. Teachers aren't. So not sure why they are lumped together as ignoble opposites to high-paying finance jobs. Maybe because blood is dirty? But I think slush funds are even dirtier personally.
Some may think doctors are paid more because they are valued more by society than teachers. But I don't think so. I think what society values is not the same as what capitalism values.
Both teachers and doctors make lots of sacrifices. So that's not so different. Both teachers and doctors will get feedback from those who receive their services saying their service was life-changing and meaningful and will never be forgotten. That's not much different either.
So what's different? Starting capital requirements and delayed pay out.
There are always outliers. That inner city kid who won the national science fair and then gets the full ride scholarship with room and board. But really, most doctors need enough of a social net to afford all that education and ideally-temporary debt, for which many will only be able to pay the principal on for a number of years. Teachers require their own education, but it's not likely to be so grueling for so many years. And you likely don't need to be rich enough to afford the loan. (Only rich people being able to afford borrowing is yet another case of it being expensive to be poor.)
The barriers for entry are much less and seeing the rewards--as intangible as they are--of students improving and showing their appreciation are so much sooner. The kind of doctor that really makes money will have to wait a long time to put their skills into practice and have a patient tell them something like "thank you for saving my life."
A conservative might think, well, they both deserve it, the doctor for their wealth and the teacher for their poverty. One took the long term reward, the other the short term. Of course the long term reward should be bigger/better. But the opportunity for trying for either is not the same. Fewer can even /try/ to be a doctor. So to consider one role more deserving is on par with predestination and so called “prosperity gospel.”
Capitalism in its cold, predictable way says, well, less people are becoming doctors, which means less supply, meaning higher price. That's all it does. Thus to capitalism, it “values” doctors more. And then because of capitalism, and teachers being paid less, teachers end up with more hardship in the long run. Which means capitalism makes teachers feel very concretely how unvalued they are. Though there are plenty of times society stands up to capitalism, this is not one of them.
What about high-paying finance jobs? So, same starting capital requirements and delayed pay out. But they pay even better than doctors. Why? Because doctors at least eventually get to receive gestures of society's love for them. Not finance jobs, because the high-paying ones are all being paid to keep money away from society in general. And keep it for the already rich, whose lives never change, as they generally are born richer than doctors or finance people. So, less of this intangible societal reward. And, thus, even less supply of them. And, thus, even greater “value” by capitalism. And basically none by society.
If society was in charge, they'd tax the hell out of these fiance guys, and their clients, and subsidize teachers so they don't have to eat dog food when they are 80. Instead it looks like teachers won't even get that at this rate. All food, all of everything, will instead be going to the dog(e)s.