I couldn’t resist thinking about this claim as soon as it was dropped on Discord chat. It must have felt deep to actually subscribe to this thinking as the only truth. It just gives me the same vibes as a picture and a quote for likes and shares on Facebook from woke millenials. This is a long post so best to move away from it than waste your time reading my ramblings.
To some degree, there is some truth to it if you say Cristiano Ronaldo gets paid more than your average university professor. Because what better way to prove your points than using an out of touch with reality example like outliers on a bracket?
It would have been wiser to compare the averages between professions instead of using specific established names in their respective industry because these entities are far from the average pay grade. Now I know I violated my rule number 1 on the internet but this is one of the few times I had to indulge and see what the other guy had to offer as an argument to the table. Because I love conflict.
Here are some claims thrown around:
Of course, otherwise more money would be invested in scientific research programs instead of soccer matches!
It’s already being done all around around the world. Most scientific researches that are hyped were years in the making. Take for instance the genomic profiling project where they map out the human genome or using E.coli to synthesize essential proteins. These projects have to be kept hidden to prevent competition from getting an advantage from the science race.
It’s also worth noting that while investing in scientific research programs are great, there’s an economic element to choosing which research to fund. Naturally, a pharmaceutical company would sponsor the paychecks and costs to whoever is trying to bring more value into the population in the field of theranostics than phytomining. And if pharmaceutical industries are the leading industry, it’s also natural to see funding for projects aligned with the business. In short, research and development can also be depended on which commercial entity will fund that progress so not every nice thing gets researched on.
Yeah, it still doesn't change that a ball kicker earns more than a top scientist
I’m intrigued by how the person sees a “top scientist” in their mental world. When asked, I get a vague answer. There’s a hazard in arriving to generalized conclusions and the term top scientist gets thrown around like all fields of science are lumped together. Saying top scientist could mean the top Biology professor of a university (they do research) or an Nuclear Medicine specialist both at the peak of their can fit this description. The lack of specific field makes the argument vague and misleading. Top scientist in what?
Listen, ball kickers and all their glory get valued more because of the entertainment value they provide and people willing to pay to see that entertainment. Can you imagine an average person not inclined in the academics be paying to see a scientist on their laboratory doing their own thing? Me neither, must be a market for those niche science geeks but not the general populace. What I’m saying here is that ball kickers create a market opportunities. I’m not into sports but I get why they can get well compensated, it’s just the nature of money doing its work.
There are advertisers, marketers, merchandise sellers, cable operators, property managers, and related industries tied to this entertainment and the cash flows from people’s pockets to theirs. So naturally there is a greater value created for the short span of time by these ball kickers and we haven’t even started mentioning how lucrative sports betting is. Whereas if you pay a researcher, the pay off can take years with no guaranteed return on investment if results prove to have zero value. It’s a greater gamble for the company that funds those as you can spend billions developing a drug only to have the FDA reject it.
Ball kicking gets a higher return on investment, the instant gratification sponsors bank on is there, and creates more job opportunities involved in the industry so naturally people are going to get compensated well. You increase the salary of a university professor and they aren’t expected to do break dancing while teaching for the class. They can probably have enough cosplay budget for their DnD games. Putting in more money does not equate immediate results here.
When I saw this graph, there’s no surprise here. I think the guy forgot that this income reported is also subjected to taxes. More income means more taxes and it’s not like more money means more budget for food. If you use money as a parameter for success or value, this graph works to prove a point how much value made for the common good. And you can have gross income but still have an equally high liabilities to pay off, this graph doesn’t reflect an individuals assets and liabilities.
Remember, Ignaz Semmelweiss who introduced hand hygiene was ridiculed and only praised after his death for the contribution. While his method reduced the incidences of puerperal fever in the hospital was valuable, it didn’t generate money or due timely recognition but it was effective nonetheless. If money was a parameter for value, I’m sure there are plenty of projects that don’t generate a lot income but are useful for the common good get crossed off the list (medical missions, housing programs, and scholarships). These are valuable but these are generally money sinks and not money generators.
Using a blanket statement like ball kickers being paid more than scientist is one lazy way to do critical thinking. You have to define what field of scientist you are judging and comparing to the average individual. Cristiano Ronaldo is an outlier and so is Dr. Fauci. What does the average salary of a player in the lower leagues and in the poorer states?
I've been making my case for a while: "it's all about what our society values". social media are a simple means. it's a clear example of how that works
In our western society the importance of professions is valued by how much they earn
Yeah it was petty for them to assume that I live or everyone lived in a Western society to see it their way of living. Here’s a fun trivia while looking up the soccer coaches earning from the Philippines. I still make more than the highest expected salary on their bracket and still have to publish two thesis in a couple of years time. Even if you pay me more money, the data collection and analysis part requires several months to do and I'm not even sure if my finding will be beneficial because I'm just researching for kicks and giggles.
See how much the claim gets less credible as the person becomes more specific? First it was society, now it was judged according to Western society, so does that mean the logic doesn’t stand when used in the context of Eastern society?
Our athletes here don't get compensated well. Our culture doesn't really market it much and there are too few people willing to pay to watch a lot of sports here. Even our Olympic representatives have to beg for pledges of support that some never came.
Learning about the subject even further, I found it funny that there are also issues where University athletes aren't getting compensated compared to university Ph.D. students as seen here.
There’s also a fun fact where Doctors (also scientists/researchers) have a handicap when it comes to seeking sources of cash flow such as advertising. Because unlike athletes that can flex their achievements and call themselves the best, doing that as a specialist on those field will get you marked by your professional regulatory commissions. Even the size and sign boards used to market our professional services also have to follow prescribed rules. And it’s generally advised to refrain from creating conflicts with colleagues to showcase who’s the best whereas competitive sports media is about hyping who is the best.
It’s amazing how much trash thinking people subscribe to just because the quote looks cool taken from some social media. It’s dangerous if young people instantly believe in this junk without questioning the claim and then argue on a subject matter they aren’t even heavily invested on the field.
You know what I learned from working multiple jobs? As a research assistant, administrative clerk for the Hospital Director, call center agent, map development data analyst, licensed nurse, ghost SEO writer, hobbyist tattoo designer, and licensed physician, I’m seeing myself following the path of Johnny Sins being exposed to several jobs before I turn 30 (still a few more years away).
Lemme tell you the basic and reliable way to tell if someone has a good grasp on the subject they argue, they can see the argument from both sides. Being an attached to a position intently makes you rigid to adapt, now I do agree on the remark that ball kickers earn more than the top scientist but it has to be framed in specifically on how much a ball kicker is paid respective to their league and what field of science is being compared to.
Not a general statement trying to sound cool. It’s rare to see that type of conversation happen online because most are just scoring for internet points rather than busying themselves building on the things that can broaden their scope.
If you made it this far reading my rambling shitpost, thank you for your time.