It is a perennnial topic of conversation: fair wages.
And here's an important tip: it's a topic of conversation for EVERYONE...some professions tend to be a bit more vocal about their perceived "undercutting," but it is the rare individual who would 1) acknowledge she's overpaid and 2) do so out loud to another person.
So stay with me on this premise - we all believe we should be paid more for our work than we currently receive.
Some of this perception may be warranted, but in the private and public discussions I've been privy to, there are two underlying assumptions, assumptions which I find fascinating but difficult to quantify and qualify, and thus, unlikely to ultimately be heeded and addressed -- i.e., you will continue to be underpaid.
But back to the assumptions:
1) Certain kinds of work are more important, typically because they are more beneficial to society at large, or perhaps beneficial to very specific, small populations that are "at risk" or in need of special services; but these professions' impact isn't adequately acknowledged by the "system," which means the professionals in these fields are undercompensated.
2) Certain kinds of work require far more diligence and "unseen effort" (usually meaning "off the clock" - which is difficult to quantify for salaried workers) and as such should be compensated with higher wages.
These assumptions make me ask:
1) How do we quantify the benefit attached to work, both for worker and society at large? Does this quantification represent the contributions accurately? Is it objective? Can it be?
2) Should diligence, "giving a damn," caring about your work be rewarded beyond the established wage? If you care more and work harder, should you be compensated? Whose responsibility is it to compensate you -- your employer? Society? The government? Who measures your care, your effort, your ultimate impact in your field? Should quantifiable result be tied to pay? Is employment itself the recognition of your diligence and effort? Is that sufficient? If wages could hypothetically be increased, at what point would the increase be sufficient?
I guess I ask these questions because people frequently complain about their economic suffering with little thought to real solvency and our individual and shared responsibility in relating to one another...economics and wages are yet another instance of human relationship -- they are the mechanism, but at the core of these questions are deeper questions: how do we treat one another? Why is this so? How could it be better? In pursuit of betterment, who loses? Who wins?
