IgnoredOne said:
Is the value to society of an HIV researcher less than that of an investment banker? Are we 'paying' the right costs for the immediate accumulation of funds versus that of overall progress of humanity? I would argue that is not so; I believe that the free market system works, but it is far from inerrant. It is a remarkable system for a rational world, but humans are not entirely rational and humanity writ large is almost invariably short-sighted.
Yeah, no large and ever-changing system is going to be perfect. Does a cashier deserve $15 an hour while a hotel maid is paid $10 an hour? Who really works harder and contributes more to society? There's not really an easy and correct answer, and I'm OK with that. I do know that neither of them are going to get $1000/hour while a doctor makes $10/hour in our world, and I think that's very fair. Collectively, people are basically setting the prices and wages based on what they feel is fair compensation for a given task.
If you want the HIV researcher to be paid more, should patients with HIV absorb that cost and pay more for their cure? Should individuals give up their hard-earned money out of charity to fund HIV research, when many of us take specific precautions to not contract the disease and will likely never suffer from it? Likewise, if I'm willing to offer a personal wealth manager 2% off the top of any profit he makes for me in hopes of giving him an extra incentive to perform better, should I be forbidden from doing so because you would rather he only receive 1% maximum?
If you're in favor of a socialist or communist system, I'll agree that there are valid arguments in favor of non-capitalistic economies. But in general a person's economic output and value
is directly correlated with his/her salary in our society.
An individual HIV researcher likely does not cure HIV alone. He is working for a company and with a team. The company must purchase very expensive equipment and employ highly educated workers and follow stringent government guidelines. And a cure alone is worthless without a factory and workers to produce the drug that will prevent or cure HIV. The drug must then be packaged and distributed worldwide by global shipping companies. All of these big companies are listed on the stock market. I've invested my own excess cash into pharmaceuticals and shipping corporations and packaging corporations. It really does take cooperation and investors willing to take a risk. Without scientific progress, our quality of life would be very low. Without wise investment and informed overseers of our economy, we could not properly manage the resources of an entire Earth and it's billions of inhabitants, which is rather necessary for large scale research projects.
To say that the HIV researcher is inherently more valuable than an investor seems groundless. It sounds good at first because in our minds medicine == Good: Life, compassion, wise old doctors, newborn babies, etc. Meanwhile, investment bankers == Evil: Greed, excess, Bernie Madoff, heartless corporations, etc. That's not very rational though.
In my view, an HIV researcher and an investment banker are quite similar but there are still significant differences. I feel that investment banking is a much riskier profession than being an HIV researcher, and that may explain the difference in average salary. The customer base is also quite different, an investment banker deals with wealthy clients. On the other hand, HIV is rampant in areas of the world that have less money. That likely accounts for more of the salary difference.
If the HIV researcher stumbles upon a cure, the pharmaceutical company that employs him will stand to gain significant profit and prestige, and the researcher and his team will most likely be rewarded for their successful efforts. If the research is ultimately a failure, there may very little real gain and the result is a massive loss of capital. But at the end of the day if the HIV researcher fails to find a cure, it's not really his fault and he's not going to be fired for research that just didn't pan out scientifically. His superiors may be disappointed by the results, but they can't blame him unless he made a scientific error. Research is just that -- research, testing, investigating, following paths that may lead nowhere, and hoping that the clinical trials are successful.
An investment banker who funds successful companies will reap a high payout for himself and his clients. An investment banker who makes bad decisions will see very little gain, and potentially massive loss. If an investment banker cannot produce consistent results, he is solely responsible for those bad investment decisions and he risks being terminated by his clients or employer. If I am solely responsible for millions of dollars of other people's money, and I know these people will be very irate with me if I lose it all, I certainly expect to be well-compensated for the additional stress and accountability.
In my real life, HIV researchers and neurosurgeons have had absolutely no positive effect on my life whatsoever. I don't have HIV or brain tumors. On the other hand, investors fund the startup companies in my city and those companies are founded and staffed by my acquaintances. These are often very small companies, not listed on NASDAQ or the NYSE, but they rely on capital to operate.
....yeah, I don't usually derail topics quite so badly, but ...