Scientists Underpaid?

Why on earth are entertainers paid more than scientists?
Surely, if governments want to further technology and find out the intricacies of our past then there should be a larger monetary incentive?

Why on earth are entertainers paid more than...?

capitalism
/thread

The average entertainer is paid very little. I doubt it's even comparable to the entry level jobs you get with a science degree. Only very few performers "make it big", and people try for commercial success as entertainers mostly for the same reasons people keep buying lottery tickets.

becuese they are more fun at parties

>>1
Because 99% of scientists are just useless fuckers leeching off the state, writing obscure and meaningless research papers that only about 5 other people will ever read.

Whose more useful to society the footballer or the scientist?

>>3
Is that actually the case?  Are you also including part time bands and such?

>>6
Clearly whether or not team A gets a touchdown helps to cure cancer.

>>6
The footballer because he doesn't leech off taxpayer's money.

>>8
Bull shit then why do my taxes go to a fucking football stadium.

>>9
which one?

because jews and free market capitalism.
don't like it? go to some fascist nation, maybe Iran or North Korea, truly the fairest and most just of civilizations.

The claim that it is a "fact" that all living things evolved from a common ancestor is really just a way to protect Darwinism from critical analysis. Most Darwinists use equivocation, that is changing the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument. The many meanings of the words evolution, theory, science, and fact are exploited by them to distract their critics. Darwinists have been unable to refute intelligent design with evidence because it is unfalsifiable, so they rely on a self-serving definition of science that excludes it from serious consideration. Intelligent design is as scientific as Darwinism unless "science" is arbitrarily defined to permit only natural explanations.

Intelligent design is not scientific, so it can't be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. How do we know it's not scientific? Because it isn't published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Catch-22!

"The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know several, are so much superstition." - Fossil expert Gareth Nelson 1978

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee 1999

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there's no evidence for evolution... throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." - Bacteriologist Alan H. Linton 2001

"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without it neither Adolf Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary "scientific" underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy." - Historian Richard Weikart

>>9
Because building a football stadium is good for the economy.

>>7
Yeah that's exactly what he means. "Part time bands" get paid shit if anything.

>>6
It's difficult to quantify "useful." In terms of GDP, football wins hands down but that's such a shitty metric.

>>12
Intelligent design is not scientific. How do we know it's not scientific?
Because it is unfalsifiable. No catch-22 is involved.

if you took the average made by scientists and compared it to the average made by entertainers, i think it would be in favor of the scientists.
now, the question is, is the ammount more they make worth all the years working hard to get where they are in ocmparison to entertainers.

>>15
This sounds like an interesting question for a pHD. As your supervisor I'm allowing you to continue with this research. I expect preliminary results in 1 week. Chop-Chop!

>>6
The scientist publishes an obscure paper which keeps 2 other professors entertained and happy.

The footballer plays in a game and thereby keeps millions of people entertained and happy.

Also, remember how Romans used gladiator fights to distract the populace from how shittily the empire was run? Say what you will but it does prevent complete, utter, niggers-looting-stores anarchy.

>>12
I know it's troll copypasta, but I just can't resist: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/cgi-bin/lenski/prefman.pl?group=aad

Suck it, bitch.

OK, wtf. Scientists make more money on average (there are a LOT more entertainers than scientists). Scientists are more useful on the whole, and have actually had SIGNIFICANT measurable monetary payback...it just does not typically make it to the scientist. The scientist works based on a fee paid by the state or a company, which is a bet by the state or company that something worthwhile comes of it. Then the state/company benefits. The scientist benefits by continued employment and pay, and companies and the state see fit to employ more scientists in the future.

Scarlet Johansen is hot.

because actors are better at the dick measuring game.

who was the guy who made Google? O ya , a scientist. He is worth more than all the a listers put together. But as  scientists we have to be able to muster business forces , and VC. Many of us feel that this is a vulgar proposition. I offer the question , is it ?

Science 27 November 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5957, pp. 1176 - 1177
DOI: 10.1126/science.326.5957.1176
   
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News Focus
Science and the Stimulus:
Science and the Stimulus
Jeffrey Mervis

The huge research windfall from the Recovery Act—the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was given $10.4 billion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) $3 billion, and the Department of Energy (DOE) received $2 billion for basic research—presented these agencies with a unique opportunity to catch up from previous shortfalls. But it also put pressure on them to find ways to avoid a disruptive boom-and-bust cycle. In a special package of stories this week, Science examines what NIH (see p. 1179), NSF (see p. 1181), and DOE (see p. 1177) did with that flexibility and how their choices will leave a deep imprint on U.S. research for years to come. The final story in the package examines a controversial area of research jump-started with $1.1 billion in stimulus money: comparative evaluation of medical treatments (p. 1183).


Meanwhile, the moneychangers get $800 billion for producing nothing of value.

Like 1 out of every 1000 "licensed" "scientists" is actually useful for the advancement of society.

ok so i have a take home test for bc calculus. one of my questions is the integral of sqrt(e^2x  -1)dx. My answer was e^x-x+c. this seems to simple. is it?

@5
+1

Sell something people want. 

Dark matter, unicorns, wavicles aren't selling well.  Despite fail should the attempt continue?

Socialist "think" so

Most scientists aren't capitalists..

End of story..

Now scientist + capitalist = potentially rich mothafucka

lol fck our world is messed up. What would you have without science? nothing really. Most probably more people know about Justin bieber then albert einstine.

just get "let go" from cancer research. i was a scientist (asstB/H1&tech) who also did the books:

Here is a little run down:

grad students - are students and should be glad they are paid

4year degree - about 18,000 USD/year

Masters of Science - about 23,000-28,000 USD/year

Science Doctorate of Philosophy (post-doc, so what 11 years of education after HS?) - 32,000 USD/year

Primary Investigator (PhD, postdoc, plus) - 73,000 USD/year


*compare this to the administrative offices:

asst degree: 20,000-30,000 USD/year
bac degree: 30,000 - ? USD/year
masters degree: starting salary about 75,000 USD/year
PhD: lol

*** These differences amaze me scientists are exposed to ridiculous amounts of hazards yet they are paid less than a garbageman. I hope everyone (who is not a scientist) gets fatal cancer and complains. i stopped helping them because i have no money and lots of bills - no choice.