>>>>>>>>>>>>>On the other hand, $200K combined income is about 4-5X as much as the national average.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If most people get by on a small fraction of that, it is no major stretch of the imagination to consider that a lot of money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And this means that other people who don't work as hard a I do are entitled to a piece of what I have earned because?????????
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure of the logic that says that anyone who earns less than you (or I) doesn't work as hard. There are jobs where people work very hard for much lower salaries. There are people out there who work more than one job to make ends meet and still earn less than you or I.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Few exceptions do not abolish the rule: one should work harder to earn more. Would you agree that this rule exists?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sometimes. The relationship between working harder and earning more is only valid if you are comparing like jobs. My guess (and I admit it's only a guess) is that there are far more people working at jobs that pay less than software development than the other way around. That's not to say there aren't low paying software jobs too, but there is a lot of work out there that pays minimum wage or a little above. Many people work hard at those jobs. How do we compare who is working harder than whom. How about a lawyer, for example who works maybe around the same hours as Marcia, but earns far more. Is he/she really working so much harder than Marcia? Probably not, but the lawyer is in a much more lucrative area.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I enjoy my work in software. I can work long hours sometimes, but do I consider it 'harder' work than the coal miner who works fewer hours, earns less and destroys his lungs in the process?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm not convinced that the exceptions are as few as you are, and I have no way to guage who is working harder than whom. I don't believe that simply counting hours is a valid way to look at it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You oversimplify the idea of working harder. It includes preparation, i.e. people are supposed to study harder too in the beginning of their careers so later on they get better paying jobs. If doctor/lawyer or similar jobs would carry only a privilege to make a lot of money for working less than e.g. janitors then all janitors would change jobs to become doctors overnight.
>>>>>>>>>Could you revisit my question now, in regard to the rule I mentioned?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I still don't have a real good guage to compare cumulative work over a period of time. Suppose I started my prep in order to become a software developer in 1970, and the coal miner began working in the mines in 1970. By the year 2008, who has worked harder cumulatively? It's not really possible to compare, but if I were nailed to the wall over it, I'd have to pick the coal miner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about using common sense instead of looking for gauges? It says, imho, that if you'd have to pick the coal miner then you would become one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eh? What kind of strange logic says that I'd choose to work harder for less money?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the way, Canadian coal miners make very good money. I would venture to say that average coal miner makes better than average programmer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll try to find information, but I think you're mistaken. There is a fair amount of mining on the east coast,and those people are not making great salaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Try to look at this in abstract way. We have labor market where people come to sell themselves for paychecks. Supply/demand (we are talking about free market model here) would manage this environment in the way that gives higher paycheck for higher effort. What is so wrong in this concept that you stubbornly refuse to accept it? Does it look too good? Keep in mind that this concept is general and you can always find exceptions to console yourself that world is still imperfect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeez! You do love to extrapolate don't you. Why would I want to console myself that the world is imperfect. Are you saying that the world is perfect? Also, you accuse me of refusing to accept your abstract model. When did I do that? When did you even introduce your abstract model. I've been talking about how things are in the real world. I haven't even tried to get into whether it's good or bad, and somehow you've decided that I think your abstract model (which you only brought up in this message) is too good. Where did you get that from? You have a very bad habit of putting words in other people's mouths. If you can't understand what I'm talking about, then just say so instead of putting your own spin on it and trying to change the thrust of my argument from simply the way I think things are into a dissertation on good vs evil. Find the part of my posts where I said this is good or bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now, as I was saying, there are any number of jobs out there that require very hard work, but because they don't require very high education, are not high paying. If you insist on factoring in the education part while assuming that the worker bee spends that time sitting around watching tv instead of already being out there working for a living, then I think you're being a bit unrealistic. I spend say, 5 years studying and 20 years working. The other guy has spent 25 years working, but you seem to want to only allow him the 20 years of work that compares to my 20 years on salary.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing unrealistic in assuming that getting better education means hard work, so imho, it should be included regardless I insist on it or not. Also, I don't think that it must be calculated in numbers.
>>>>>Basically, you request to come up with numerical theory absolutely confirming that hard work is rewarded by free market society. However, one should remember that this is basically sociological issue, i.e. it inevitably brings in certain social-political considerations. In other words it is not about math where one guy say 2x2=4 and anyone else promptly accepts inevitable. It is about some general principles, and if both parties cannot agree on the principle then it is just what happens often in real world.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I'm the guy who said these things are not comparable. It would be lovely to live in a world where things were so simple that harder work meant a higher wage. Of course, you'd still have to have some way to figure out what work was harder than other work. All I've tried to point out is that we do not live in such a world. As I keep saying, sometimes it works like that, and sometimes it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>PS: it is truly amazing that you are so quick getting personal and playing emotional fury when your arguments are confronted. I also noticed, on few occasions, that you are more complacent when it is done by other persons. Do you really believe that for some unknown reasons I must cut you some slack?
>>>>
>>>>I don't want you to cut me any slack at all. I just want you to focus on the things I say rather than trying to read between the lines and coming up with stuff that has nothing to do with anything I've said. For example, you said to me above you can always find exceptions to console yourself that world is still imperfect. I don't know of anything I've said that sounds like I'm trying to console myself about anything at all. I'm just trying to state the facts as I see them. I did not say this is good or that is bad, but you seem to want to impute that to me anyway. You think you know me, so you decide what I 'really mean' and you focus on that. Far too often you are mistaken. So yes, I get my back up when people twist my words and accuse me of stuff I've never said, and you seem to want to make a habit of it.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, bottom line. I said a very simple thing. Reality as I see it. Sometimes harder work brings more income, and sometimes it does not. Where in that do you find me happy about it, unhappy about it, wanting to change it, thinking it's good or bad?
>>>
>>>Be lighter on yourself, Alan. It is not criminal to console yourself, thinking something bad or good and so on. It is also fine, imo, when someone else thinks about you and tries to gauge your mind. It makes life better, no reason to get defensive.
>>
>>I only get defensive if somebody says, or implies that I said things I never said (or even implied afaik). I think most people in the world do the same.
>
>It is a big world, anything may happen. For example, when you (!) start next time (how dare you, Alan) telling stories about me (rrrrr) I will just look at you and say "Alan, you are wrong", and you will admit it. Magnificent, eh?

Hmmm... have I told stories about you? When you say, "I will just look at you...", have you been stalking me? Should I be looking over my shoulder? ;)