> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I've been thinking long and hard about this issue for many, many years, and I still just don't get it.
>
> Why is it that the less you do, the more you get paid to do it?
>
> Money seems to be inversely related to the amount of work you do, and it has been that way for thousands of years. Granted, this usually requires some token "special knowledge" or experience, but still... If you see paintings from the Renaissance or Middle Ages commissioned by the wealthy, they show peasants portrayed as living lazy, idealic lives out in the beautiful woods. The rich, living lives with little to no actual work, were incapable of understanding what the life of a serf was actually like. The serfs, living brutal lives, barely eeking out a living by the sweat of their brow, were likewise unable to comprehend living a life where they could have lots of money and power for doing no work, like their lords did.
>
> I have worked in a wide range of working environments, from being a lowly dishwasher to being a network administrator, and I've found that the pattern seems to still be in effect. Granted, at least today there is the possibility of "improving" your situation by learning new skills and "moving upward", but...
>
> Why? Maybe it's just me, but when you do the kind of work that involves physical labor, there is a sense of satisfaction when the job is finished that no other kind of job can provide. Mental labor lacks this one essential, which is (IMHO) why there are so many office workers who are "workaholics"... because of the diluted nature of their work, it takes much more of it to provide that same sense of satisfaction that comes from doing a small amount of quality physical labor.
>
> Physical labor is often dangerous and risky to the person doing it, it often requires an incredible amount of energy and skills, and it's the type of work that you can only do when you're still in the prime of life. Without physical labor, the nonphysical kind would be impossible. It's the farmers, the ditch diggers, the construction workers, the burger flippers who build our infrastructure and keep it standing, yet we consider them cheap, expendable, uneducated, and undesirable. These blue-collar workers get paid much less than white collar workers do.
>
> By considering this form of work cheap and lowly, aren't we undermining our own foundations? Since money seems to be the prime motivator in our capitalistic society, why aren't we putting it towards those who advance it the most?
>
>
> If individuals were paid according to what they actually put into the system (quality and quantity), nondeundisirregardless of their status, I think our society would function much better, individuals would be happier, and the whole general mishmash of everything would improve.
>
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not a communist infiltrator or anything, I'm just a newbie to adulthood, trying to make sense of the world around me. How far off-base am I?
>
> -Enig"lacking a good dog"ma

Your theory does bear merit, however, I would disagree on a couple specifics... which I won't bother going into, because I'd rather continue your rant into a slightly different direction, if I may.
Here's my beef: There are several careers that are deeply sought after and idolized by the masses (e.g.: actors, singers, professional athletes) not simply because of the paychecks involved, but because they're just plain fun. These are the things that nearly every kid alive dreams of doing when they grow up, just because of the joy of doing what you love to do. So, for having that ultimate job, you also get paid exhorbitant amounts of money, amounts that are unfathomable to the rest of us.
Conversely, a large amount of society perform jobs that they would quit in a heartbeat if they could otherwise survive financially.
Shouldn't people who have jobs they detest be financially rewarded in order to balance out that fact? And why are people who have great jobs paid so much, when they'd probably do them for free simply because they love them??
It just seems backwards. The pro NBA player has huge amounts of motivation, while the guy selling *his* souvenirs has virtually none.

Tra "perhaps I'd feel differently if I money weren't an issue" nio