I mean really ePilot, how can you justify airline pilots earning no more than a "dead animal operator" by condoning and furthering the supply and demand concept. I mean come on, a dead animal operator? The putz picks up and disposes of dead animals!! And he's earning more than most regional FO's. If thats this country's idea of capitalism, I want no part of the new capitalism we are experiencing in this country. One in which an FO needs to work over 200 years to earn what the pile of pig sh*t sitting in the executive suite is given in compensation in one year!!
Ok. I cannot possibly cover every occupation out there, so I'm hoping you'll be able to apply some of what is here to the bigger picture.
You are also asking very complex questions without a basic understanding of economics. What I write below is lacking a lot! I know this, you will not. It doesn't matter though. At the end I will leave you with a good place to start if you're really interested in knowing, if not, STOP asking stupid questions!
I'm going to start small:
Dead Animal Collectors, Garbage Collectors, Port-A-Potty Cleaners, etc., are going to be paid well because nobody wants those jobs. Since there is very little supply (human resource) and there is a demand (need) to have these services provided - pay must increase. Also these types of jobs don't really require an education so anyone can be a part in the supply. This means the pay has to be higher than another job that doesn't require an education, but is much better job to do. That is, flipping burgers at McDonalds isn't that bad of job when compared to pick up dead animals, hence you would want more money to pick up dead animals than to flip burgers.
Are you with me so far?
Now take a look at locations. You've tried to compare a receptionist's pay in NYC to a regional airline pilot pay. That comparison is apples to oranges. Take a look at receptionist pay in Scotts Bluff, NE and compare it to NYC. You'll see that the NYC receptionist makes more because it cost more to live in NYC. Now I'm a receptionist looking for a job and there are two openings both requiring the same set of job skills/labor/hours etc, and I don't have a preference on where I would like to live. I think we both can agree it will cost more to (rent an apartment/buy a house, insure a car, buy food) live NYC then Scotts Bluff, NE. So if I take a NYC, I'm going to require money than in NE. An employer in NYC needs to hire someone to be a receptionist and they offer the same hourly rate as an employer in NE. Which job would you take? Your money will go farther in NE, or in other words, you'll get more "bang for your buck". The employer in NYC will have to pay more to attract an employee in/to NYC.
Still there?
There was a question that I asked you that you never answered. Do you know the difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE? Art work is subjective. Math is objective. Acting is subjective. Piloting is objective. Anybody can say they are an actor, maybe even get paid to act, but that doesn't mean anything.
I have a friend that wanted to be a model. He went to modeling school and had pictures taken. He did runway shows and fashion shoots. He could not however make a real living doing it. It also cost him quite a lot of money. Keep in mind he still had to invest something into this occupation. Everybody does, why, because nothings free!
So what does this have to do with anything?
Let us say that I invested $50,000 for my certificates and ratings (Commercial, Multi-Land, CFIi and MEI) I earned my 1500 hrs and got hired by a regional airline XYZ. XYZ was hiring with 1000tt and 150me and paid $19.25/hr. I was hired objectively.
My buddy invests $50,000 into becoming a model. He pays for modeling lessons, head shots, teeth implants, whatever models need. ABC modeling agency is hiring models. What do they use as criteria for hiring? Good looks? A certain number of fashion shoots? Runway jobs? He will get hired subjectively. (Here you can change this to an actor, an artist, a writer etc.)
Now supply and demand.
Anybody can act. Not everybody is "good" at it ("good" being subjective). So there is a supply of "actors", but demand for "good actors". Again the same goes for artist and so on. When you are a "good actor" you can command the pay you want (or what someone is willing to pay). For example; WB and FOX are both scripting a movie. They can cast whoever they like, known or unknown actors, but will have to pay more for what audiences want to see (again very subjective). Since Bruce Willis is who everyone wants to see right now, WB and FOX now have a small supply to draw from and will have to pay more for him. Nameless Joe can act pretty well so FOX cast him instead because the fat cats want to keep more profit for themselves. Now the movie doesn't make as much as WB's movie, FOX should have paid Bruce more.
People also like their entertainment more than traveling safely, hence they VALUE (read pay more $, willing to spend more $) entertainment more than travel. If I as a employer see a high demand for my product (entertainment) I'm going to charge more for it. As people pay more they'll expect better entertainment, so I'll have to hirer better people who will demand more because the supply of people at that caliber is smaller. And on and on.
That last example works with CEO and management people as well. United and Delta both compete for a top CEO (in theory, because we all know Tilton SUCKS!). They are not only looking for the best within the aviation industry, but every industry. They are looking for someone who can run a billion dollar company. Those kind of people are VERY rare and can command very high salaries.
Now back to us, pilots.
We are hired based on hours flown and some flying skill (which is set to a national standard -objective). In the early days of aviation there were't many pilots, or flying public for that matter. Pilots would get minimal pay to entertain and that was about it. As travel grew and demand increased, employers had a NEED to hire. There were't many people qualified to pilot aircraft so pay had to be increase to create an incentive to move people in an aviator positions. This was the "golden" time in aviation. Now we have pilot factories spitting out qualified pilot by the dozen in a matter of months. The supply has been increased severely! While employers still need to hire they'll just decrease the hiring minimums in order to keep pay the same. Just as FOX hired a lesser known actor or United a POS CEO when compared to the total supply of applicants.
Now assume that demand is fixed. That is it will stay at a set value (for our discussion here).
Certification is a double edge sword. It sets a minimum standard. That minimum standard limits entry into the supply which would increase demand. Add to the supply and demand decreases. Doctors, Nurses, Pilots, Certified Public Accounts, Certified Financial Planners, High School Diploma, Master Degree, etc. are all certified, they are an agreed upon standard with acceptance. Each restricts the supply a little more. It use to be that having a BS/BA was good enough to command a higher salary, but not any more. The same goes for pilots. As more people acquire that certification the larger the supply becomes the less demand there is for that type of certification.
Currently we have a unlimited supply of pilot for a limited demand. This drives our wages down. When the demand rises and supply dwindles, our wages will go up. Hopefully that time will come, but you cannot force it to come earlier or under false pretenses. The supply and demand equilibrium (market) will correct itself. Take a look at housing prices. That is a perfect example of market correction and adjustment that you can plainly see because it got so far off track that it had a huge impact. Smaller market corrections might never be felt or even known. ExpressJet is an example of a small correction when their wages adjusted downward.
I'm no Alan Greenspan or Bernanke and this isn't close to a real discussion of Economics, Supply and Demand, but it will hopefully provide you with some understanding.
If not, go to the library and check out: Basic Economics, A Citizen's Guide to the Ecomony. By Thomas Sowell.
That would be a good start, good luck.
eP.
