Why are rappers and sports stars earning more in a week than nurses in a year/
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
There's a fallacy which I can't remember the name of; it's about people that are greatly valued in the community such as nurses, teachers, firemen etc and that their annual salary is often less than what many top celebrities such as sports stars, film stars, rappers etc earn in a week or even a day. People then come out with some sort of crazy statement about how "we" should stop paying these celebrities so much and pay that money to the nurses instead!
Can you tell me what the name of this fallacy is please?
Can you tell me what the name of this fallacy is please?
Answers
3Historically this is called "the paradox of value."
An example often used is that water is so much more "valuable" for life than diamonds, yet diamonds command a higher market price. So, one would argue that nurses are more important or valuable than athletes, or we hear about how important teachers are yet they're paid less etc etc.
But as Dr. Bennett mentions market prices are determined roughly by supply and demand. There's an awful lot of water which is much more accessible than there are diamonds. Similarly with nurses and teachers compared to celebrities. So the supply--how much of something is offered at what prices--is shifted so far compared to the demand--how much people want at what prices--that the price is low for teachers, water etc.
One fallacy that seems to be involved is the fallacy of division. Although the total amount of water is much more valuable than the total amount of diamonds in the world that does not mean that any small quantity of water would be or even should be more valuable. So with nurses, firemen etc--we might prefer to lose ALL of our celebrities to losing ALL of our nurses, but that doesn't mean we'd care so much about losing any particular one, which could be more easily replaced in the nurse category than in the celebrity one.
An example often used is that water is so much more "valuable" for life than diamonds, yet diamonds command a higher market price. So, one would argue that nurses are more important or valuable than athletes, or we hear about how important teachers are yet they're paid less etc etc.
But as Dr. Bennett mentions market prices are determined roughly by supply and demand. There's an awful lot of water which is much more accessible than there are diamonds. Similarly with nurses and teachers compared to celebrities. So the supply--how much of something is offered at what prices--is shifted so far compared to the demand--how much people want at what prices--that the price is low for teachers, water etc.
One fallacy that seems to be involved is the fallacy of division. Although the total amount of water is much more valuable than the total amount of diamonds in the world that does not mean that any small quantity of water would be or even should be more valuable. So with nurses, firemen etc--we might prefer to lose ALL of our celebrities to losing ALL of our nurses, but that doesn't mean we'd care so much about losing any particular one, which could be more easily replaced in the nurse category than in the celebrity one.
What you are referring to doesn't strike me as a fallacy, but it could be the result of a cognitive bias called the just-world fallacy or the just-world hypothesis.
There is no fallacy; just a misunderstanding of economics. Salaries are roughly based on the law of supply and demand, not perceived value. If someone were to claim that teachers SHOULD be paid more than professional athletes, then they are just expressing an opinion.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course