Ryan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: There are such people, but that is why I said "nearly no" as opposed to "no."  How many would do what their jobs require and do them for a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening?  I love teaching, and I take home (for a family of four, soon to be five) about exactly what we need each month to maintain our standard of living (and we have no house in the country; we have no motorcar).  In other words, if I could make what I make as a teacher 8 hours a day or as a flipper of burgers 1 hour a day, I'd very quickly choose the burgers (I enjoying being in a kitchen too). If everyone had a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening then we wouldn't know any different - the reward for being a doctor, teachers, architect, attorney, plumber, pharmacist, electrician, restaurateur or policeman would no longer be monetary - it would be someother form of status or recognition of accomplishment, but there would still be highly-qualified "professional" people.   Maybe you would take the burger job I wouldn't, even though I also enjoy being in a kitchen - I (and I suspect you) would soon want the restaurateur job because it is more interesting, more challenging and more satisfying (regardless of how much it paid).

But we've eaten the fruit, met Prometheus, taken the red pill, wandered out of Plato's cave and followed the white rabbit, and now nearly no one would go through 8+ years of expensive school, have to maintain malpractice insurance, have to hire a staff to handle insurance claims and scheduling, and deal with illness every day for (literally?) peanuts and a pat on the back.  There may be a few highly-qualified people left, but I doubt many of those would be willing to be highly-regulated.

As for running a restaurant, I've thought about it, but decided against it because I enjoy my evenings at home.

Epignosis wrote: There are such people, but that is why I said "nearly no" as opposed to "no."  How many would do what their jobs require and do them for a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening?  I love teaching, and I take home (for a family of four, soon to be five) about exactly what we need each month to maintain our standard of living (and we have no house in the country; we have no motorcar).  In other words, if I could make what I make as a teacher 8 hours a day or as a flipper of burgers 1 hour a day, I'd very quickly choose the burgers (I enjoying being in a kitchen too).

If everyone had a straw hut, some water, rations of bean curd, and no Ryan Seacrest to watch in the evening then we wouldn't know any different - the reward for being a doctor, teachers, architect, attorney, plumber, pharmacist, electrician, restaurateur or policeman would no longer be monetary - it would be someother form of status or recognition of accomplishment, but there would still be highly-qualified "professional" people.

Epignosis wrote: smartpatrol wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: A mans income should be a function of his needs. 15 million is more than any man's needs are worth.   You two can have fun in your world in which there are nearly no highly-qualified, highly-regulated doctors, educators, architects, attorneys, plumbers, pharmacists, electricians, restauranteurs, police... Pay me according to my needs instead of my expertise and effort, and I'll gladly flip burgers for an hour a day.

That argument isn't as convincing as it first appears for there are people who work because they enjoy it, especially the highly-qualified and the highly-regulated, I would go as far as to say I wouldn't feel happy about employing a doctor, educator (why aren't retired teachers called taughters?), architect, attorney, plumber, pharmacist, electrician, restaurateur or policeman who was only doing it for the commensurate salary. Not withstanding I would develop a sizable "need" to endure flipping burgers for an hour a day.

RoyFairbank wrote: A mans income should be a function of his needs. 15 million is more than any man's needs are worth.

Smurph wrote: IThe world's moral compass is NOT going haywire though.

It might, though, if we continue along the current direction.  A morally bankrupt leadership cannot set a good example for anyone.  For the first time in years, I am hearing leading Indian industrialists literally urging the govt to act in the best interests of the nation and not worry about lobbies and vested interests.    It's very funny because for years, they tried to manipulate policy from the backdoor but they are now urging politicians to show some spine.

Smurph wrote: So just saying the world is getting worse in every aspect is silly.

Indeed, it's not.  What concerns me chiefly is the inertia at the top.  People are shying away from tough decisions on several fronts and it is actually the sheer pace of economic developments that has kept the world going through these last few years, more than anything.  There is a lot of activity to keep us engaged but leaders are not willing to bite the bullet on anything.

I think you're confusing "the wild west" with Clint Eastwood movies.

Textbook wrote: But more importantly, why are we discussing this incident? Do you think annoying old biddies or thoughtless thugs in uniform are a new phenomenon?

I don't know, I guess there is some cultural gulf here because these kind of things ARE very new in India.  They just didn't happen. I don't know what the elite are up to but middle class and lower class life was based on co-operation and friendships.  We have even broken windows of cars and apartments in our time; I dread to think if some such sulky cat had got us detained for that.  Some people now leave their ageing parents all alone to fend for themselves, or even murder them if they stand to gain money from it.   Relationships are very important in sub continental culture so I don't know where such rashness is going to take us to.  And it's not just me, many people from my age group or slightly older share these apprehensions.  There have always been thugs, murderers and thieves but if people that you could once trust and be friends with might stab you in the back, that makes life more complicated.

EDIT:  And playing cricket on a public street is not inappropriate in India.  It happens all the time and when kids play, they do make a noise.  Kids play badminton downstairs next to my apartment complex, big deal.  Again,  it would be hard for me to explain the significance of such things because 'noisy' is not considered a sin or a nuisance here.  At least it wasn't until some NGOs began to lobby for noise pollution norms and such.  Festivals are celebrated by the community with a lot of fervour here.  Just because it's on a street next to somebody's house doesn't make the street that somebody's property.  There are not enough public parks and kids have to play on the street.


Edited by rogerthat - May 01 2012 at 01:33

It's hardly five minutes by foot from where I reside.  Praise the lord that I don't know her personally, otherwise I would have to confront her for such extreme pettiness and such an utter lack of compassion.

I think your getting interested in the marital status of the person doing the complaining is a bit suspicious. How on earth is it relevant?Either it's something worth complaining about or it's not. Also, here's the entirety of the story you told:

I don't think you've got the "getting shot playing cards" thing quite right because while there are still gangsters and always will be, the difference is that back in those days, getting shot for cheating at cards was acceptable to most people. If it were very firmly established that I was a card cheat, let's say I was caught red-handed in front of a crowd of onlookers, ordinary citizens and lawmen alike would've sat on their porch reading the newspaper while my murderer strolled away.

Edited by Textbook - May 01 2012 at 00:58