High Earners not in "bullshit jobs"?

[VirginWestCoast]

Inspired by a couple of recent threads, the"bullshit jobs" one and the one asking how posters became well off.
Mumsnet seems to have people on generally higher incomes than the UK as a whole, with people quite nonchalantly saying that they and/or their DH are on 150k+ and a lot of people were saying on the Bullshit jobs thread that they were very well paid.
In the other thread, lots of people out their success down to sheer hard work, which I don't doubt, but lots of people work hard in worthwhile (ones which are pretty much universally recognised as worthwhile) jobs but are never going to be on 150k+ like nurses, teachers, cleaners, care workers. I know there are others and these are the ones most often trotted out but bare with me:
So it cannot just be working hard, it has to be working hard in the right areas (finance etc, I'd assume) to be well off if you aren't born into it or inheriting it.
And yet, while you may have, for example, doctors on 70k or so, the 150k+ group don't seem to include the typical "worthwhile" jobs (though I know this may well be down to me not being very familiar with the jobs in finance, senior management etc)

So my question is this:
If you are a high earner, do you feel that your job is socially useful? "Bullshit job"? Something else entirely? Do you think that what you're paid is fair?
Also, with regards to hard work, what did you have to do to qualify for your job role/ how long did it take?

This is just for personal curiosity so any answers are greatly appreciated.

I am just at 6 figures including benefits.

I don’t think I have a bullshit job. I work in a firm of accountants in a risk and compliance role. Taken a long time to work my way up. A lot of responsibility.

Optometrist. Earn over 50k and obviously a very useful job. It's relatively easy, 9-5 and no work to take home. Quite a few different paths you can take but retail pays the most.

Well there’s a major difference between revenue generating jobs (private sector) and public sector ones that don’t.

We can’t have teachers and nurses unless someone goes and generates the money to pay for them.

This is completely wrong. (If it's any consolation, a few decades ago I probably would have thought similar.)

Whether or not a job is in the public or private sector has zero relevance is assessing it's value to the economy. I suppose what a job contributes to GDP can be assessed by what it pays. On that basis, a social worker, police officer or army officer (all public sector) contribute more to the economy than a lower-paid retail worker (private sector.)

It is completely wrong, as my younger self once believed, to think that the existence of the public sector depends on money generated in the private sector. Output is output, who owns the business is irrelevant. Appendectomies performed by a public sector surgeon add as much to GDP as ones he performs out-of-hours in a private hospital.

If all the schools in the country were privatised tomorrow, and continued to deliver the same output while getting their money from school-fees charged directly to parents, they wouldn't suddenly become a valuable part of the productive economy rather than being a parasitic drag that had to be paid for by taxes on the more worthy private sector. The value of their output would be the same as it's always been, they were just as valuable when they were in the public sector. This is just an economic fact.

Communism is a very bad idea, for many reasons, but the Soviet Union was able to keep going for roughly 70 years, without there being a private sector to pay for it. That's probably the best illustration I can give to show that the idea that the public sector is funded by the private sector is wrong.

In my DHs consultancy, a senior engineer would make way above £38k. Assuming they are chartered of course. Consultants at the top of the engineering profession can earn very well and my DH specialises in flood relief and planning for new homes at the moment. He’s doing less structural engineering these days but obviously everyone’s concerned about flooding and new homes so it’s important.

DD is a family barrister and most people think that’s worthwhile too. High earnings can be achieved in both these careers if you are any good but you need talent and hard work! Hard work only gets you so far and many professions require accuracy and high intelligence too.

Teachers become Head Teachers. Many secondary school heads get £100k plus and executive heads in excess of £150k. However like highly paid surgeons, they are the best of the best. In addition they are not employers and don’t generate employment and wealth in terms of GDP. So we need employers to pay for what we want from the state.

My ex was a high earner and actually struggled with guilt regarding it.
He worked in banking. Long hours granted, but he had no qualifications and it was a case of right place right time.
I worked similar hours have similar qualifications and he earnt 6 times my salary.
To say it's hard work is often short sighted. The hardest I've ever worked has been minimum wage jobs.

If you are a high earner, do you feel that your job is socially useful
Not really - computer software. If anything it removes some lower skilled jobs.

"Bullshit job"? Something else entirely? Do you think that what you're paid is fair?
Not in comparison with say a Nurse, no, I am waay overpaid.

Also, with regards to hard work, what did you have to do to qualify for your job role/ how long did it take?
I've done it by a combination of ambition, good luck, privilege (not Eton etc but had a few advantages) and being prepared to work away from home a lot in the past.

I don't think I work especially hard - and I don't subscribe to the "poor people are lazy" view of the world.

As for bullshit.... I have thought most work was bullshit for about the last 30 years. I never knew what I wanted to do (still don't) so I never had an idea of what I could do to make myself socially useful.

In the other thread, lots of people out their success down to sheer hard work, which I don't doubt

I doubt it. Yes, hard work but massive amounts of luck too. Plus genetic predisposition. And quite possibly a leg up in terms of parenting.

The only people that think anyone could earn 6 figures with hard work alone, is a bit thick.

The outputs of all of us (private and public sector) pay for the consumption of all of us. The difference between public and private spending is merely that public spending is a group decision on behalf of all of us, and private spending is paid for and decided at an individual level. Both kinds of spending are equally worthy forms of economic demand, and supplying either with labour or good is equally worthy.

So Russia was great then for 70 years with millions killed by the state. Honestly this is so wrong. The public sector is funded by the government. Either from loans or from tax. You couldn’t make all the schools private because no one could afford them. We have a public sector paid for by pooling resources and deciding that we want a public sector financed by individuals and companies paying tax and government loans. Of course public sector employees pay tax but they do not pay corporation tax and they don’t expend the wealth creating economy. They help it by teaching and ensuring people are healthy but they could not be employed without tax and borrowing from government sources. They do not pay for themselves.

That's probably the best illustration I can give to show that the idea that the public sector is funded by the private sector is wrong.

It’s neither wrong nor right in ‘moral’ terms.

However it IS how we organise our economy right now.

Adopting a communist model would be quite the shift. Equally privatising everything and abolishing tax altogether would be a bizarre move. Neither are likely I don’t think.

My sibling earns over £150k as far as I am aware as a doctor.
I am a lawyer and do pretty well financially as I chose business law not some of the lower paid areas of law and I moved hundreds of miles to London away from all family and did pretty well in the exams - law prizes, scholarships etc.

I am not really sure what a b ullshit job is. I have acted for quite a few agents (salesmen ) who are extremely good at selling commercial products of all kind - even they who persuade people to buy in return for commission are extremely skilled. Being able to sell is something most people cannot do well.

@LaurieMarlow
I do realise completely how the private sector is also beneficial and essential to upholding the public sector and economy.
I don't mean at all to make this Public Vs Private. If you consider institutions with layers and layers of middle management which make the whole thing less efficient and more expensive- if that happens in the private sector then it's bad for the business itself. But when this occurs within, say, the NHS and you have public funds paying the salary of people whose role is largely or entirely unnecessary... Do you not think that would count as a bullshit job?

Do you not think that would count as a bullshit job?

I suspect there are genuinely bullshit jobs, yes. Particularly in the public sector where it’s often can be less obvious if you’re adding value.

However I think it’s also very easy to call bullshit on jobs and industries you don’t understand.

It's not always just hard work that is rewarded other factors come into it.

Eg - supply and demand e.g. lots of people willing and able to qualify as nurses but not many as doctors

• level of risk e.g. a business owner could be taking big risks if he has personal assets given as security for bank loan and therefore takes higher rewards if the company does well or a finance/law professional could be sued if something goes wrong.

I disagree with high salaries paid to big company directors who are not taking risks and are paid well even when the company is failing.

The only people that think anyone could earn 6 figures with hard work alone, is a bit thick.

I agree with this.

By the way my income has been very erratic despite being very high at times, and in the current circumstances I will soon be without any income and any help help at all from the state - I am not moaning about that, just saying.

Work in tax. It’s completely bullshit-the job consists of making rich people richer about 10% of the time. The other 90% is spent negotiating charging the fees for the work undertaken to make the rich people richer, going through risk management procedures put in place when people have overstepped the Mark making rich people richer and its appeared on the front page of the daily fail. But the majority of the time is spent stroking the egos of people who have risen to the top largely through having no lives and stabbing everyone in the back and stepping on their crumpled corpses.

Job satisfaction is not high

I disagree with high salaries paid to big company directors who are not taking risks and are paid well even when the company is failing.

I agree and this isn't stopping - it seems to be getting worse.

I was pretty snooty about (what I considered) bullshit jobs when I was young and full of idealism about my own chosen career. However, after a couple of decades in teaching, I quite often find myself thinking I might actually have liked being a high(er) earner in (what I'd probably no longer consider) a bullshit job.

I think that some individual organisations look at the layers of admin very carefully. Individual schools, for example, definitely do. The staff expenditure is broken down into very small headings and looked at constantly. I think the NHS and even individual hospitals are giants by comparison. I think breaking them down into smaller cost centres but ensuring larger contracts are let for drugs etc would bring about savings in management.

It could also mean messages are answered too by putting calls through to a colleague when someone is on holiday. Could you imagine a company not doing that?

I help make rich people richer. So very valuable and worthwhile. I have a client who is a billionaire, who told me that if it weren't for me, he'd probably have no more than £800m.

Made me feel all warm and fuzzy, you don't get that kind of satisfaction as a social worker, teacher or in the charity sector.

@MrsTerryPratchett
Promise I'm not thick!
I mean I'm not doubting that they've worked hard ( I guess they could be lying but I can't prove that), I'm very aware that there's a huge combinations of factors involved, chiefly luck and natural abilities as you said. My own family's a pretty good case study as to how a lot of people (big family) with similar work ethics (all generally hard working, if not especially money oriented) can end up on massively differing salaries due to different natural abilities.
Sorry if what I wrote was ambiguous (or came across entirely wrong!)

I work in the construction industry and don’t feel it’s a bullshit job

We build some amazing projects, some important to our country, others just amazingly beautiful

I keep rich people rich. They pay handsomely for this service.

Promise I'm not thick!

I didn't mean you specifically. I did get the feeling you didn't just attribute it to luck and that was just phasing rather than a firm belief.

Beauty in buildings is vital in my opinion. Crap towns result from poor buildings! And crap lives!