Adam was being Smithily rhetorical when he declared that all jobs pay the same. Today we’d argue that it’s jobs requiring the same sort of skills, training, commitment, which all pay the same even if wages vary wildly. And even then we’d not really be insisting upon exact equivalence.
Yet there is also great explanatory power to the insistence. Some large portion of people simply wouldn’t work in finance at all – that being a good reason why finance jobs are highly paid, to get people to go do those boring or unfashionable jobs. Loads and loads of people would like to strut the stage as actors, which is why near all actors never make a single penny from doing so.
Total compensation is the same across jobs, wages varying with how noisesome the job is.
Now we’ve some nice empirical evidence of the contention:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]If consumption and non-wage amenities of work enter utility, holding few assets may induce a trade-off between wages and amenities when searching for a job. We establish this in a model of search with asset accumulation, extended to accommodate amenities. We then provide empirical evidence of this trade-off in the context of student debt, finding that higher debt causes graduates to accept jobs with higher wages and lower job satisfaction. In a representative sample of college graduates, we infer causality by exploiting within-college, across cohort changes in financial aid. A quantitative extension of our theoretical framework that explicitly models student debt accounts well for our empirical results. Identifying the utility value of amenities through observed search behavior, we find that high satisfaction jobs are valued at 6 percent of lifetime consumption relative to low satisfaction jobs. This trade-off is economically significant; a policy maker using only wage data to assess the welfare effects of with an income-based repayment policy would mistakenly conclude that graduates prefer a fixed repayment policy.[/perfectpullquote]So, why do CEOs get lots of money? Because it’s a shit job but someone has to do it….
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Firstly, I'm not sure how you draw your conclusion about CEOs from the study. The outcome of which seem obvious - if you have a lot of debt you chose a job with higher pay (to reduce the debt) at the detriment to one you might enjoy more. That seems to make sense to me.
On the CEO point, I expect massive pay rises for slaughter-men if wages correlate with unpleasant jobs.