Jobs/professions separated by taste, and income, but not skills?
February 10, 2013 11:25 AM Subscribe
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. But it seems to me -- as a teacher discussing possible careers with young folks, in which some focus on maximum expected income per skill set -- that there are jobs or professions in which the average participant could excel at another, and earn (on average) more money, but chooses not to. This is helpful in illustrating that income isn't allocated by talent, and those choosing professions value many different things.
Can you help me think of airtight examples in the following form? "Many/most Xs have the skills to succeed as Ys -- and they could earn more money, on average, as Ys -- but they choose not to." Speculation about why they might make that choice (including, e.g., love of doing X, distaste for Y, risk averseness, etc.) also appreciated. Please set aside factors that don't really relate to choice, such as scarcity or ignorance. Thanks!
How about white-shoe lawyers or industry titans ostensibly making less $ and changing the type of power they wield by becoming politicians? 'Many Harvard JDs/MBAs choose the notoriety and power that comes with public service over personal enrichment in the private sector.'
posted by charlemangy at 11:41 AM on February 10, 2013
posted by charlemangy at 11:41 AM on February 10, 2013
Admission to veterinarian school is actually more competitive than admission to medical school. If someone has the ability to win admission to a veterinarian school and graduate as a vet, they almost certainly could have chosen instead to become a physician. However the mean pay for physicians is about twice that of veterinarians.
posted by RichardP at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by RichardP at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Virtually everyone in the not-for-profit sector is making less money than they would in the private sector doing the same work. It's 10% of the total US workforce, for what that's worth.
posted by Ndwright at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Ndwright at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2013 [4 favorites]
Software engineers who choose to work in videogames. They could earn more money (and likely work less hours) if they switched to working in finance. However they find videogames more fun and personally rewarding (banking software is considered dull by many), and some have political issues with the finance sector that makes them unwilling to work inside it.
posted by Joh at 11:49 AM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Joh at 11:49 AM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Journalism vs. PR/communications immediately comes to mind. A lot of people stay on the former side because they genuinely love the work or don't want to sell out, as well as because it's harder to move back to the news side once you switch over.
posted by eponym at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by eponym at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2013
People with sci/eng PhDs who prefer to work in academia instead of industry: industry jobs pay better, but there is much less freedom of choice in research topics.
posted by ecsh at 12:03 PM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ecsh at 12:03 PM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Virtually everyone in the not-for-profit sector is making less money than they would in the private sector doing the same work.
I don't think this is true at all, at least the "same work" part.
Similarly, the vast majority of people working in software are not eligible to work for financial...
posted by rr at 12:04 PM on February 10, 2013
I don't think this is true at all, at least the "same work" part.
Similarly, the vast majority of people working in software are not eligible to work for financial...
posted by rr at 12:04 PM on February 10, 2013
Attorneys leaving private law practice to become public defenders?
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:08 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:08 PM on February 10, 2013
Below the line jobs in film. A union grip will out-earn a wannabe director or producer, but most film school students like to dream big, and then settle for office jobs.
posted by Ideefixe at 12:15 PM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Ideefixe at 12:15 PM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
It is a relatively common thing in the DC area for law school graduates to work at a big law firm making lots of money until the day they pay off their loans, and then getting a job in the government which pays less but is much more interesting, to them.
Most anyone in the sciences who became a professor has the background and the drive to be successful in industry or to have become a doctor, but didn't do so. (In general, though, getting admitted to a PhD program in the basic sciences is much easier than getting admitted to med school these days, so that doesn't apply to all PhDs).
Another way of looking at this issue is that not everything that is "difficult" is also "valuable" from an economic perspective.
posted by deanc at 12:16 PM on February 10, 2013 [2 favorites]
Most anyone in the sciences who became a professor has the background and the drive to be successful in industry or to have become a doctor, but didn't do so. (In general, though, getting admitted to a PhD program in the basic sciences is much easier than getting admitted to med school these days, so that doesn't apply to all PhDs).
Another way of looking at this issue is that not everything that is "difficult" is also "valuable" from an economic perspective.
posted by deanc at 12:16 PM on February 10, 2013 [2 favorites]
Some people in my Engineering Masters program went into finance rather than work as engineers. I know that this happens in physics as well. The quantitative/analysis skills are what they are looking for in their hires. The upside is they make more money but I think they work many more hours and with much more stress.
posted by Medw at 1:02 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by Medw at 1:02 PM on February 10, 2013
I suspect there are a lot if librarians (my field) who could make more, even in libraries, as tech folks or programmers. It tends to be a gender and income divide.
posted by bluedaisy at 1:21 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by bluedaisy at 1:21 PM on February 10, 2013
A great line of discussion. Beyond career guidance, differences in income are a wonderful opportunity to teach people many subtle and interesting things about how goods (in this case labor) come to be priced. (If I were you I'd focus more on the demand side than the supply -- for example, veterinarian pay is less than doctor pay not because doctors are smarter, or vets are more self-sacrificing, but because people value the health of people more than they do the health of animals -- prices are always going to be constrained by the marginal utility of the good being sold.)
One classic example in the risk-aversion theme you mention was corporate lawyer. It's possibly changing now, but for decades a smart kid could go to a top law school as a deliberate trade-off, exchanging the risk (and returns) of a career in business or finance for a stable and nearly-sure shot at a big house in the suburbs and a nice new car every few years.
posted by MattD at 2:37 PM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
One classic example in the risk-aversion theme you mention was corporate lawyer. It's possibly changing now, but for decades a smart kid could go to a top law school as a deliberate trade-off, exchanging the risk (and returns) of a career in business or finance for a stable and nearly-sure shot at a big house in the suburbs and a nice new car every few years.
posted by MattD at 2:37 PM on February 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
N-thing that the legal profession is rife with examples of this (mostly because BigLaw firms pay very well and are terrible, depressing places to work). Federal judges could make approximately 10x more money in private practice. Law professors and AUSAs all generally have BigLaw credentials but choose to work at jobs that pay them less than a first-year associate's salary.
posted by ewiar at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by ewiar at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2013
You could also look at the low end of the scale. There's a subculture that I've heard variously called crusties, crustpunks, or "ooglies" (I swear I've actually heard this term, and it was even used as an autonym!). These people choose to live a nomadic lifestyle, staying put only long enough to earn the money for the next leg of their journey. The jobs are often extremely hard seasonal labor, things like picking sugar beets for two weeks, or working a tour on a fishing boat. They definitely have the skills to earn more money (because pretty much any steady job would earn them more) but they prefer to pick up and move on.
posted by d. z. wang at 6:31 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by d. z. wang at 6:31 PM on February 10, 2013
As to law, it's not just an issues of jobs within the legal profession. There's the entire issue of going to law school because it was (before the imploding job market made law school a sucker's bet) the safe path after college. Thus, there's the choice of becoming a corporate lawyer versus becoming an entrepreneur. My corporations professor used to say that his classes were filled with risk-adverse people who would one day make fine proofreaders for venture capitalists and other people who got rich by taking risks.
posted by hhc5 at 6:34 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by hhc5 at 6:34 PM on February 10, 2013
How about judges of the superior courts in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland) and Australia (and possibly Canada)? I'm talking about English High Court level and above. Because most such judges are appointed from successful senior barristers, not only could they have succeeded as barristers but they have already done so.
posted by Logophiliac at 7:41 PM on February 10, 2013
posted by Logophiliac at 7:41 PM on February 10, 2013
On the other end of the pay scale, there are a whole set of blue collar jobs in the allied health fields or municipal services that pay pretty well but plenty of people eschew in favor of lower-paid retail or office work because they prefer a more flexible schedule or more pleasant working environment.
I would tread really carefully with this sort of topic. It is valuable for students who are coming from an extremely career-oriented, money-focused background to expose them to different alternatives and to point out that those who choose other paths are doing so not because they're not "smart enough" or don't work hard, but because they have different priorities and get very valuable non-monetary benefits-- psychic, intellectual, and social. However, there are plenty of people whose backgrounds are ones in which they actually don't know what career possibilities exist out there and could benefit from the knowledge that, "You know, internal medicine doctors do well, but all you have to do is do 2 more years of training in cardiology, and your salary can triple." Lots of students come from backgrounds where they don't have the social capital and background to understand the maximal career possibilities available to them, so when a teacher says, "Plenty of accomplished people choose to do administrative work in a non-profit!", that's really the only career-oriented message they're getting.
posted by deanc at 8:05 AM on February 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would tread really carefully with this sort of topic. It is valuable for students who are coming from an extremely career-oriented, money-focused background to expose them to different alternatives and to point out that those who choose other paths are doing so not because they're not "smart enough" or don't work hard, but because they have different priorities and get very valuable non-monetary benefits-- psychic, intellectual, and social. However, there are plenty of people whose backgrounds are ones in which they actually don't know what career possibilities exist out there and could benefit from the knowledge that, "You know, internal medicine doctors do well, but all you have to do is do 2 more years of training in cardiology, and your salary can triple." Lots of students come from backgrounds where they don't have the social capital and background to understand the maximal career possibilities available to them, so when a teacher says, "Plenty of accomplished people choose to do administrative work in a non-profit!", that's really the only career-oriented message they're getting.
posted by deanc at 8:05 AM on February 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Pure math is not well compensated, but applied math can be, so academics who study pure math are skipping out on potentially a lot of money as actuaries/accountants/consultants/etc.
posted by zug at 11:39 AM on February 10, 2013 [3 favorites]