Nadkor wrote:Southern Hampshire wrote:The question isn't about 'same type' of job at all. It's more about the value it brings to the company.
If we're going to measure same type of jobs the same way we might as well start paying female footballers the same wages as Wayne Rooney, who cares that male football has a x10000 viewbase and a x1000 revenue?
Or better, let's pay every semi-professional weekend pub Lacrosse player the same wages as Tiger Woods. Same job after all - just sports.
Rather than paying a female footballer the same as Wayne Rooney, I'd happily argue to pay Wayne Rooney the same as a female footballer.
The fact that he gets 15x the median annual wage paid to him every week for kicking a ball around a field is absolutely disgusting.
Are those 90 000 people as skilled as Wayne Rooney? I doubt it.
It seems most of the time the argument is about the statistics and the generalization. After all, it's down to the individual. Wayne Rooney may be one of the best English footballers, but I'm pretty sure that John Smith who works in Morrisons for pennies above the minimum wage isn't the best accountant in England. If we look closely to those 90 000 people, I'm pretty sure none of them would be worth as much in their respective field as Rooney is in his.
Football is a perfect capitalist system. It's only paid for by those who use or watch it. Anyone who doesn't want to get involved doesn't have to and doesn't pay a penny, and I don't think anyone should have a problem with it.