Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Garett Jones More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (1 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/791
The author at A Stitch in Haste in a related article titled Yet Another Faux Externality Anecdote writes:
[Tracked on January 23, 2008 9:50 PM] COMMENTS (6 to date)
Horatio writes:
"Just why investment bankers and traders out-earn, say, doctors or computer engineers is a question I've never heard convincingly answered. Are they smarter?" The bankers and traders in NYC probably are smarter. Investment banks and hedge funds recruit from the top schools. The average doctor or engineer did not go to a top school. "Do they contribute more to the economy?" Yes. Posted January 23, 2008 9:38 AM
Alex J. writes:
Traders look like they earn so much because you are only looking at the successful ones. You don't see all of the traders who've gotten cashiered. Posted January 23, 2008 10:37 AM
TGGP writes:
This from Robin Hanson on regulation is excellent. Posted January 23, 2008 2:46 PM
Snark writes:
If you have some ideas about effective compensation schemes, then why don't you become an executive or a consultant to corporate boards? Because Mr. Samuelson would earn much less under any effective compensation scheme proposed to reform outrageous salaries. Posted January 23, 2008 3:58 PM
John V writes:
Snark, LOL. That was good! Posted January 23, 2008 10:24 PM
dWj writes:
That "are they smarter?" bit drove me nuts when I first saw it. I've heard the theory that the high number of marxists in academia can be explained by the belief that intelligence per se should be highly compensated in a fair world, and academics figure they're the smartest people in the world and aren't the richest, so capitalism must be wrong. Well, on a small scale, as you note, there are many individuals who make a lot more or less than they probably should -- Lloyd Blankfein, for example, is probably underpaid -- but on a large scale, compensation is much closer to optimal than it would be if everyone were paid their IQ. I've known too many smart people in general who seem to think way too highly of that particular character trait. That it does correlate with things that are worthwhile does not give it value except insofar as it contributes to those worthwhile things. You've been given a chance to contribute to the world in ways that others might not be able to, and to be compensated for it; if you choose instead a line of work that gives you less money, that's a perfectly honorable choice, but the "less money" bit doesn't come unbundled from the reasons you chose that line of work. Posted January 24, 2008 7:11 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||