CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:21
Arguments:13
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (13)

Debate Creator

Mahollinder(900) pic



Can the market properly evaluate the worth of a job?

On the website, Digg, the statement "...only markets can successfully determine the value of a job." was made in the comment section of the story: tax hikes on the rich: will Dems blink?

Is the statement true, can the market properly evaluate the worth of a job? And to follow up, how does it make that evaluation, and is the evaluation representative of the importance of that job to the survival of the market itself and the society within which that market exists? Are these questions meaningful (in the sense that the use of "the market" makes it somewhat separate from the people and their individual wills and aesthetics)?

Add New Argument

In a free market economy, the market can only properly evaluate the worth of a job because each and every job is based on skills and knowledge. Some jobs require more skills and knowledge while some jobs require little skills and knowledge.

Hence, this is why a doctor makes more money than janitor. However, interferences in the market always exist through laws and unions because there is no such thing as a completely free market.

Also, the worth of a job is based on supply and demand. Higher demand and lower supply means more worth and vice versa.

Minimum wage laws create more poverty because high minimum wage results to higher unemployment to low skilled and knowledgeable whereas unions protect individuals from competition.

AMA and government protects doctors from competition by enforcing licenses among many other occupations; it limits the supply and demand and inflates their salaries.

NFL protects rookies with unions by inflating their salaries.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
2 points

Lol No.

50K+ to kick a ball?

Just an example of how the market cannot properly evaluate the worth of a job.

I guess technically it's not the market who evaluates the worth but people. Especially if these people are capitalist. They're bound to be wrong.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
2 points

50K+ to kick a ball?

Just an example of how the market cannot properly evaluate the worth of a job.

But that's where you are wrong...If you look at the amount of people that go to sport games, then you will see why they get paid so much. Also, not very many people are able to "kick a ball" as good as they can, so we (anyone who goes to the games, watches the games, or buys any products that sponsors them) are paying their salary. I'm not saying that the system isn't a little crazy, but that's the world that we live in.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
2 points

Supply and demand

Most people could not handle the training involved.

Bringing in large amounts of cash for your employer also determines your pay, not how easy one thinks it is to kick a ball.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
2 points

That professional baseball players get paid more than doctors, is evidence enough that that the market at least in some cases cannot evaluate true worth of a job or career.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
2 points

The most important Job of all 'Parenthood' doesn't pay well at all....

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge

The market can, and does, determine the value of a job. Supply and demand determines what the value of a job is, as it does products. If there are more people that can do that job, then the value for that job will be lower, like a cashier making minimum wage compared to a doctor making $100,000 a year. Since less people have a license to do the job, then the value of the job will go up. the society affects the value, as well. If all cashiers quit their job, then people will still manage, but if all doctors quit their job, then life would be a lot harder because an average person can't complete some of the tasks that a doctor can. In some jobs the market isn't as strong an influence as with others. Going back to the cashier example, if you aren't doing your job as well as the next guy, then that person may receive a raise, while you don't, but in a job that requires a license, everyone has a payscale for each year of experience, but some receive bonuses while others don't. The market of the area that you live in affects the value, as well. If you live in an area that doesn't have many manufacturing jobs, then the wages will be lower, and if you live in an area that is expensive, then the wages will be higher.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
1 point

The market? As in, supply and demand? You are asking if the emergent equilibrium reached from people buying and selling goods and services can evaluate the worth of a job?

If what people are willing to pay DOESN'T define the value of the service then exactly WTF does?

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
Mahollinder(900) Disputed
1 point

I also asked if the "questions (are) meaningful (in the sense that the use of "the market" makes it somewhat separate from the people and their individual wills and aesthetics)?

If what people are willing to pay DOESN'T define the value of the service then exactly WTF does?

That's an interesting question. However I don't think that what someone is "willing to pay" accurately reflects the value of a service or product, or (I stress) the work required to provide either.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
1 point

I look at nearly every action in terms of supply and demand. Not consciously perhaps, but if I were to analyze an action that is how I would do it.

So even reduced to a single person's desires I say there is a "market" in that this person has demands (need food, money, place to sleep) or even a social market (pleasing spouses, friends, w/e) and this person will weigh his choices based on his own rational self-interest in regards to how well he is able to aquire the means to supply his demands.

What suppliers are willing to sell at affect what people are willing to buy at, and vice versa.

So when I said "what people are willing to pay" I only stating half the situation as these two things (supplier sell price and buyer buy price) infer and define the other.

Side: Yes Skills and Knowledge
1 point

They probably could, seeing as how people get educations in doing this, but there's so much more money to be made if we undervalue a job.

Side: Could but won't

No, it does not. Have the principal of a school absent do to illness, the school still functions just fine. Have the janitor miss a day and see what happens.

Any factory can produce a product without management, but it cannot produce a product if it has no operators. If the market properly evaluated the worth of a job, those that actually did the work would be paid higher than those in management.

Skill and education have little to do with how one is paid. If this was truly the case mechanics, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc., would be paid higher than office staff.

Side: Not in my lifetime
1 point

In the labor market, the value of a job is usually determined Pokemon Showdown by agreement between the employer and the employee, and is influenced by factors such as qualifications, experience, capabilities, location, working time, salary and other benefits.

Side: Not in my lifetime