High Paying Jobs

As you've probably noticed by now, I have a somewhat unique perspective on many different issues. A blog is a great place to share these, because it's a reflection of what I personally think. I invite you to read them and respond to them, and I ultimately hope that people will be challenged in their thinking by reading my entries.

Today's topic is quite popular, although my perspective on it may not be. I just saw an article on the internet telling the top ten US cities for having strong job markets and are predicted to begin several new high paying jobs. When I hear people talk about pursuing high paying jobs, I cringe on the inside for three reasons.

First, it's foolish to dwell on money so much that it becomes an idol. As the Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." The love of money may lead to dissatisfaction, greed, envy, theft, lying, or a host of other negative things.

Second, I believe that the amount of compensation a person receives should be related to factors such as how much physical effort or stress the person exerts in order to do the job. I do not believe that it should be based on how important the job is. For example, physicians and pharmacists are able to charge lots of money for healthcare because people need it at certain times. At those vulnerable times, people pretty much have to pay whatever the cost is, and I don't think that is fair. It would be best for all employees in the country who work the same number of hours and exert the same level of physical effort or stress to be paid the same amount. For example, a manual laborer could be paid the same amount as a business executive if their jobs require similar levels of effort. Similarly, receiving a raise should not necessarily be automatic (except to adjust for inflation). Rather, raises should be merit-based. When a person demonstrates that they are doing a better job since the time of their last raise, they should be eligible for another one.

Third, whenever I hear about somebody earning a lot of money, I stop to ask, "Where is that money coming from?" In a private company, the money ultimately comes from consumers. In a public position, the money comes from the state or federal treasury, which in turn comes from taxpayers. Either way, I'm paying for part of the salaries of private and public employees, so it's hard to get excited when a friend tells me that they earn a lot of money.

I'd like to cast a vision for a new approach. I would recommend salary caps based on the level of difficulty of jobs. People would then choose jobs based on what they really want to do, not just based on what pays the most money. Employees would work hard for their raises and be aware of the possibility of a pay cut if they are not working up to standard. If people choose jobs based on what they really want to do, there would probably be a lot less grumbling about job-related frustration.

Apart from socialism, this idea probably would not be able to be enforced (it may not even work with socialism). But although I cannot change the whole country, I'd like to encourage you personally to evaluate your perspective on your salary. What are your motivations? What are your frustrations? When and why do you think people should get a raise? How does your salary level impact the organization or community as a whole?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, so please leave a comment.

A Bad Argument

Throughout life we have many occasions of persuading others to believe a certain thing or being persuaded by others. There's nothing wrong with exchanging facts to try to defend or refute certain claims, but there's one line of reasoning that just bugs me: "It's true whether you believe it or not."

Now hang on a second. How does the person actually expect their audience to respond to that? It seems that they expect the audience to say, "Well, even though I don't believe it, he says that it's true so I'll start believing it." I hope that nobody is foolish enough to blindly trust one person's assertion without agreeing with any of the supporting facts. The message that this argument carries is, "My belief in this is better or stronger than your lack of belief in it." Such a message is often counterproductive to the person's argument because it reduces their credibility.

People may be hesitant to believe a new concept for a variety of reasons: It sounds too good to be true (or too bad to be true), it doesn't harmonize with another believe they hold, or perhaps they're just not that interested in it. Rather than trying to pressure a person to believe in something, it's usually more effective to give them time to process it and ask questions.

However, there is a time and a place for the argument I'm discussing here. Sometimes a person tries unsuccessfully to convince a skeptical audience of his belief, and it can be tempting for him to reconsider whether he truly believes the thing to be true. Sometimes, it's good for the person to assure himself (silently), "It's true whether they believe it or not."

You are the Media

We are always hearing about the influence that the media has on our lives. Sometimes people accuse the media of being too liberal or too conservative. Most of us would like the media to just stick to the facts avoid slanting the story to one side or another.

But hang on a second. What is the media, really? It is a messenger that goes between an event and the listening audience. One form of media is called a medium, and some examples would include a TV station, a newspaper, a radio station, etc. I'd like to suggest another example: you and me. When we tell a story about an event, we are acting as a medium. The way that we tell a story will shape a person's perspective on that situation. If the person you're talking to trusts what you say, they may give your story more value than whatever they read in the newspaper.

It's important to consider the impact our words have on others. The Bible instructs believers to speak the truth in love. This instruction prohibits three types of negative media:

1. Speaking the truth without love. This is where the person is saying something entirely true, but the embarrassing/ hurtful factor outweights any benefit that it might have. The definition I use for gossip is, "Sharing information with people who are not part of the problem or the solution."
2. Consciously spreading lies. A half-truth and an exaggeration are undercover agents of the lie. We must strive to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3. Unconsciously spreading untruth. When does this happen? When we don't know the whole story, we often tend to fill in the gaps with what probably happened. These are things that we assume, but don't actually know.
   

The next time you're recounting an event to another person, try to see yourself as a reporter. Base your conversation on facts that you know for sure and acknowledge any assumptions that you're making.

One last thing: pay attention the power that "estimation words" have. It the temperature is 79 degrees, one person might comment that "It's in the seventies" while another person would say, "It's almost eighty degrees!" If the temperature is 81 degrees, one person might comment, "It's just above eighty" while another could say, "It's over eighty degrees!". It's usually clear by these "estimation words" whether the person considers 79 or 81 degrees to be too hot or too cold. If you want to be a totally neutral medium in conveying the temperature, you could just say, "It's 79 degrees" and let the audience come to their own conclusion.