Why is management paid higher than the monkey troupe?

some people have nothing to do but sit in meetings, approve things, and dont have to sweat it out.
I've been a manager. It's a lot more work and accountability than that.

That is not fair.
Life is not fair son. I have the soul of a poet and the heart of a lion but no one is throwing roses at me.

What is "fair" is the price agreed to by the employer and the manager for his labor. It has nothing to do with what you think about it. If you think you are not paid properly, then you need to (1) negotiate a better wage with your current employer, (2) find someone else to pay you more, or (3) start your own business.

Different skillsets? - yes, but they areboth equal, whoever did the division of skillsets or division of labor, needs to think that division of labor means remunerating managers and workers alike.
Why would you pay people the same amount for different jobs? The reason why we pay different prices for different things, is so that we can rationally allocate resources. If we paid the same price for every common class of good, we would have no way to determine quality within that class.

Working is as much a hard skillset as managing is.?
It's not about physical difficulty. Even the dumbest moron can lift rocks all day. People are paid by the value of their labor as it relates to productivity. Managers, as organizer, theoretically increase the productivity of the people working under them. They perform a specific role of oversight, planning, communication, and quality control.

This may be a revolutionary or retarded thinking, the way you look at it, but then so is socialism.
It's not revolutionary. It is regressive. It basically wipes out everything we know about economics in the last 150 years and returns us to dark ages, pre-industrial, pre-enlightenment thinking about social exchange and human action. Socialism is an old concept, not a new one.

In any case, what would you call an economy based on free contribtions to the society? As in, collective efforts going into making a common product that is being used free by all (as in open source)

american socialism? social america? whatever?
Collective suicide.

Look at what happened in China before reform. Look at what has happened in Cuba. In East Germany. In Russia. Collectivism leads to collective poverty, because there is no rational resource allocation (no market derived prices) which creates compound clusters of errors over time, and the incentives to produce (profits) are undermined in a system of collective ownership aka commons because the incentive is to take more than you put in. And as the pie dwindles, everyone puts in less and less until there is nothing.

If you want to help people, you want to set them free. You want them not to be tied to a collective, but give them the individual opportunity to succeed. To save, and learn, and to choose their own rational best interest.

And they will surprise you, because capitalists have always been the charitable ones bailing out socialists. People fled socialism to go to capitalist countries. Capitalists are the ones who drop drugs and food into crisis areas. Capitalists are the ones who shipped grain to the Soviet Union to offset mass starvation.

Communism/socialism/fascism/collectivism have all been tried. History is a testament to how as nations become more socialistic, they impoverish themselves and lose liberties, and nations that become more capitalistic become wealthier, lives become longer and liberty prevails.
 


Even after reading division of labour and economics concepts and about 'different skillsets' being the cause of the remuneration difference, I still feel it is quite unfair.

Ok. So spend your life working the counter at McDonalds and demanding your rights. Good luck.
 
In any case, what would you call an economy based on free contribtions to the society? As in, collective efforts going into making a common product that is being used free by all (as in open source)
You're an idiot.


Edit: I don't get why you guys are trying to have intelligent discussion with this troll...
 
I really want to lace into this moron, but pretty much everything has already been said, that needed to be said.

It's people like you that will be the downfall of our society.
 
It's people like you that will be the downfall of our society.

People like that make good out-sourcers and keep "higher ups" in their rightful positions.
 
I have always been wondering this question - why is 'management' and 'higher ups' who only 'approve' this and that, be paid higher than the actual doers? Any explanations? Or is this the bane and hand-over of capitalism? If it were a socialistic setup, would things be done by group consensus? (as in a start up)?
Here's a better question: Why aren't you in that position?

Seriously, think about it: If it is better to be in position X, and you are in position Y, why have you not moved to position X? If position X is so easy, and you are so skilled, the rational decision would be to try and be in position X. So why aren't you?
Simply on the basis that you are not there and it is the better place to be in, it means someone 'beat' you there. Hence more skilled/able.
 
Why is everyone answering this question? It was a joke right? If not, the OP is a complete fucking moron.
 
Its not a question of 'managing' - I would say successful people who call themselves 'managers' 'work with' people, and not manage people per se. If you think about it, the inventors of fire, poison, wheel and sliced bread had no managers. If they had, probably we wouldnt be having these. Did Thomas Alva Edison have someone to 'manage' him? I dont think anybody likes to be 'managed' - thats one of the reasons why there is entrepreneurship - people who dont want to be 'managed' by someone - people who want to work for themselves. Regarding the question of accountability, its the same level of accountability that a managed person has, that a manager has. If everyone 'managed' there wouldnt be any doers - if every body 'did' things, there is little or no need for a management.

A little story comes to my mind. There were two boat races. In the first boat race, everybody rowed the boat, and the boat came first in the race. In the second boat, three people rowed the boat, and seventeen people managed those who rowed the boat, managing the manager, and so on. I guess its probably a ratio of managed to manager.

Its a different question when it comes to business ownership and 'delegation of tasks' - a business owner delegates tasks to subords, that is kinda acceptable, but what I think is questionable is the role of mid level managers who act as middlemen between top management and lower downs. I am not against their existence - its just that they dont deserve to be paid more than the actual people who do the stuff.

Regarding countering McDonalds, somebody has to do it (work the counter), it is a delegation of task, but what is unacceptable is the wage disparity between those who dont work the counter and those who sit somewhere else and manage.

Regarding 'value to the business' you can see that many businesses provide 'stock options' to employees - even there, managers get higher share than employees !

All scientific advancements could not have been attained unless there is such a thing called - 'no manager'. Did Tim Berners Lee have a manager who told him 'go and invent the Internet'?
 
Its a different question when it comes to business ownership and 'delegation of tasks' - a business owner delegates tasks to subords, that is kinda acceptable, but what I think is questionable is the role of mid level managers who act as middlemen between top management and lower downs.
I try to be classy, but this idiotic comment pretty much says it all.
 
From Wikipedia:

"I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas and — ta-da! — the World Wide Web."[9] He wrote his initial proposal in March 1989, and in 1990, with the help of Robert Cailliau, produced a revision which was accepted by his manager, Mike Sendall.

Now shut up.
 
A little story comes to my mind. There were two boat races. In the first boat race, everybody rowed the boat, and the boat came first in the race. In the second boat, three people rowed the boat, and seventeen people managed those who rowed the boat, managing the manager, and so on. I guess its probably a ratio of managed to manager.

And the team that won probably had a good trainer, a good manager and a good coxswain.

The manager put the team together, obtained financing for the boat, oars, trainers, travel expenses, sponsorships, and found a good trainer and a good coxswain.

The trainer taught (managed) the individuals to work as a team under the guidance of the coxswain.

The coxswain managed the oarsmen, ensuring that they worked as a team in competition.
 
hmmmm...

Fifth...

One idea you have to get out of your your head is that managers only "hire and fire" and "delegate tasks". As a manager, you are much more of a servant to your employees than you might think.

One concept that fits is the one of the manager building and maintaining the framework in which the employees can be productive.

So you think you just waltz into your office, plop down in your chair and start coding and you are the ubergeek hero and the manager can go fuck himself and why the hell is he paid more?

Well, the complete framework for that work - that is the management providing (and yes, also by delegating and deciding and coordinating).

- The building
- The chair in which your ass sits
- The coding environment, probably by a year long, cruel process of discussions, meetings, considerations of technologies, security issues, IT support directives, etc...
- Heat, light, food / drink
- bathroom facilities
- your work, by deciding on overall business strategies, directives, projects, tasks
- marketing
- your wages

And as soon as even the littlest, tiniest shit goes wrong, who do you turn to? Your manager to fix it.

"My chair is creaking, and it breaks my concentration" - who will have to deal with it? Your boss

"my computer is broken" - Who will have to get a new one to keep ya productive? Your manager

"The toilets aren't flushing on 2nd floor" - ah, you guessed right

..etc..

Even in "just" middle management, there is so much to do and yes - decide - every day that it can cost your manager his job three times over.

And count on it, a good manager also protects his team from all the political power struggles you don't even see anything of.
The shit that gets handed down to you, the fuckstorm you are raging about to your buddies at the bar so long they can't stand to hear about it anymore? Take that times ten and you might get a small idea of what your manager is facing.

And that is why a manager provides more value to the business than you do. Because he provides the framework to have 100 people working - while you are just one of those people.

/rant

::emp::
 
And count on it, a good manager also protects his team from all the political power struggles you don't even see anything of.
The shit that gets handed down to you, the fuckstorm you are raging about to your buddies at the bar so long they can't stand to hear about it anymore? Take that times ten and you might get a small idea of what your manager is facing.

This.

God, I don't miss those days.
 
The exceptions to this is in the financial companies.
My ex-GF worked for a major US investment company in HR and the bonuses some of the traders were geting made the CEO's salary and bonus look normal.
Bonuses are part of the compensation model on Wall Street, and not necessarily tied to performance. If you understand how signing bonuses work in football, there are some similar elements. Bonuses in the corporate world are a form of deferred compensation.

The problem is, they are called bonuses and not deferred compensation.