← Back to context

Comment by wsve

9 days ago

"status-compensated"?

people enjoy doing high-status things and will trade off pay for status. asking for equal pay as low-status work is essentially asking to have your cake and eat it too

  • Is working for Wikipedia somehow a higher status job than working for Google?

    edit: I'm asking because my 7 year stint as an engineer at Wikipedia hasn't provided me with an endless stream of lucrative job offers.

    • Your edit is comparing opposites, basically making the ops point for them.

      You work at google for money. Money is high status under capitalism.

      You work at Wikipedia for status in the traditional sense - you trade capitalist status (the salary) for the higher actual status of working for a non profit.

      5 replies →

  • I'd love to live in a world where working for a non-profit was high status. Unfortunately that's just not the world we live in. Maybe if you are someone high up at a well known charity, but the bulk of the people keeping non-profits running do not get status from their work.

  • Uh...

    Can you name me a single job where the tradeoff is "You won't get paid much because this position is so respectable"?

    There are respectable jobs where you don't get paid much because the area of work simply does not generate much money (charity), or because they're being exploited and guilt tripped into working hard because of their mission (charity), and there are jobs which are respectable primarily because they pay very well...

    But there are no jobs where you're "status-compensated", where you are paid less but that's okay, because the job is so respectable so it's okay to pay you less.