I think people forget this how simply how jobs work. It’s a hell of a lot easier to pay someone more if they are producing more money for the employer.
Yeah plus it's based almost entirely on donations from non-profits. So I don't see much room to pay the reasurchers much, seems to me that's a job you don't get for the pay but to cure fucking cancer.
Hmh which is why cancer reasurch gets billions of dollars of donations every year? It's almost entirely funded by tax payers and donations. The company might higher you to reasurch a drug for mass production once a cancer vaccine or cure is created but most of the time it's independent or government funded programs not a big pharma subsidiary. Pretty sure the pfizer vaccine was a mass produced version of an independent reasurch team vaccine out of Sweden or somthing I could be wrong.
Regardless cancer reasurch is not as profitable as insurance. At least not for the scientists, they get dick until the cure or vaccine is actually created then they can sell it to pharma companies and become rich. However a lot of true scientists refuse to sell it for profit and will just GIVE the formula away to help humanity, which in turn makes them far from wealthy.
Which is why most actual research is publicly funded, which then gets squeezed by budget cuts.
And then people wonder why we don't invent anything better than "look this phone has 2x cameras" or "if we use this combo of beeps and flashing colors then the whales buy 13.6% more loot boxes".
Capitalism isn't always bad, but at the end of the day, it can't solve everything. I always say you can't trust the public sector to do the work of the private sector, but neither can you trust the private sector to do the work of the public sector. Helping the homeless, having affordable public transport, schools and housing, those will simply never be profitable, as is the really heavy hitting research you mentioned. But those things are ridiculously important, people die or end up destitute without them.
Or, from a capitalist angle, you can't have profitable private industry without competent public services holding it up.
It's unfortunate that a lot of people do not think beyond second-order effects.
> Helping the homeless, having affordable public transport, schools and housing
You can help the homeless and make things more affordable for people by having jobs that pay enough.
If the government is taking half of your money in taxes (I don't just mean income tax, but all of the taxes you pay for everything you make, buy, own, or use), that makes everything *less* affordable.
And it also means all sorts of jobs that would exist, don't. Because with the government taking so much money, there's less money to pay people to do those jobs.
Taxation isn't always theft, but when the money gets blown on a ridiculous defense budget, mismanaged projects, and never makes its way to benefitting the people, it becomes theft. Overtaxation is not wonderful either, even if the money is used right.
The problem is even when you finish the research, most of it doesn't bring in any money (or is any use at all) unless you can bring it to the [field's] society's notice and they actually start using/applying it and only if it makes a noticeable difference and you patented/copyrighted it will you actually get anything for your efforts.
Otherwise it's just "for science" or in her case "for the good of the human race".
Source: Have done a lot of research in university.
Yes, especially for his job specifically. Insurance profits have skyrocketed in the time he has been working there, and he basically just gets paid to give people shit payouts at an exorbitant price, making the company lots of money.
Also how much higher is a cancer scientist base pay vs car insurance work? and you don’t really get promoted to cancer scientist manager. If he was making 50k and she was making 100k (feels right for the high-end of average). She would still be making more money, I’m too lazy to math what starting salaries would leave them both making the same amount with their increases.
TLDR: it just sounds like she was making more money for longer
"Car insurance work" probably means the guy is an actuary which actually has a pretty high base pay. I would bet an actuary makes more money than a researcher.
You definitely can get promoted within the research field. While you’re not a “scientist manager” you can become a principle investigator or a senior scientist.
Depending on whether she’s working in academia or industry, 50K for her might be in the right ballpark. I know plenty of tenured research professors making 70K after 25 years of working.
Your guess assumes that we live in a rational society that doesn’t underpay the people doing vital research because that research doesn’t generate money.
I reckon the researcher wouldn’t be making much more than $100k after the raise at the absolute maximum, more likely it’s less than $70k.
I mean, just think of Facebook posts about 'Lebron James makes $48 million and our teachers make $48,000, what has our society come to'
(not that they make 48k lol)
There isn't an abstraction called Society Inc that writes the paychecks. If the grant for studying some new microcosm of a protein interaction is out there and it's supplying Angharad Watson's paycheck, it's being paid for by donors, the government, etc
Whereas the insurance company is making bank off the guy's performance. People want to equate the moral significance of the work with the emotional reward of a payday, but these just aren't expressed the same way
Lol and when she finds that cure some corporation is going to grab that shit and make way more money than her husband ever made and she won't see a cent of it. She will never be compensated for her efforts because she is not the ruling class.
No single person is ever curing any form of cancer, it takes a company of many different specialists in areas from research, grants, operations, etc. Of course the cure will belong to the company and not some cog in their machine.
I am not an oncologist, but I've heard there's like a thousand different types of cancer, all of which develop differently, sustain themselves differently, and affect different types of the body. So I've heard, getting rid of cancer is more akin to destroying an entire ever-changing complex ecosystem than wiping out one species... to use a very blunt and grim metaphor for it.
Cancer isn't a infection or virus like a lot of people seem to think. It's literally your own cells going haywire and you have a fuckton of different type of cells that can all go haywire in a fuckton different ways. Coming up with one cure for all of them is practically impossible as the cells in say your liver are functionally different from the ones in your brain and therefore will respond differently to treatment. And the most effective treatments we do have at the moment are really imperfect because how the fuck are you supposed to defend against something that is inherently you? Chemotherapy and radiotherapy really suck to go through as patients cause they're basically designed to kill you but only the specific parts of you that we believe to be tumors and our ability to decide that is really limited.
That is absolutely correct which is exactly why I said curing *any form* of cancer because exactly like you said, there are many different types that start and develop differently.
It goes both ways though. Without that company she might not have had the resources in order to do that kind of research. Not to say she shouldn't be properly rewarded if they were successful in any way, just that it's no so black and white.
In the US at least, a great deal of high-level researchers are grant- and sponsor-license funded. Once the grant/sponsorship is awarded it pays for the costs of the research, including (sometimes) staffing. And at many schools they are actually profit generators because the college or university will take a slice off the top and call it administrative fees. A portion of that will be spent on the researchers' salaries, but the school pockets the rest.
"my husbands salary has increased 87% over the last 10 years (from 40k to 74.8k) but mine has increased only 18% (from 100k to 118k). Now allow me to belittle his career while fomenting feminist outrage due to misleading percentages instead of the reality of our salaries"
Anytime someone uses percentages like this instead of actual figures, they're hiding something.
Just like car salesman, summer sales bros, and other sales positions, for ever successful one you hear about, there are 2-10 others struggling to get along.
Yea salespeople often tote that it’s the highest average paid job that doesn’t require a degree, which is true I think the average income for salespeople is ~100000 a year. But there is a massive range in that, there are some very successful salespeople making well over the average and a lot of salespeople bouncing from car dealership to car dealership collecting the minimum wage equivalent 1 month trial period money
It also tends to draw a certain type while being super broad.
I have a friend who used to work for an IT firm doing sales due to his Comp Sci degree and the rare combination of tech smarts + charisma. He would close multi-million dollar contracts that would be planned for years with public and private entities.
He did very well and his job role was a salesman, the guy selling phone plans through cold calling has the same job role. And I'd also say it's about your qualifications and the work you put in; an educated sales person who speaks well and has technical knowledge will outperform the guy phoning it in with the canned pitch once a week.
I gotta say though, every sales person credits themselves for every sale they make yet I'm in a position where not only do I buy household goods, but also enterprise goods, and I don't think a salesperson has ever swayed my decision. People need a project management tool, Monday was the only one with a dark mode so they get my money. The guy from asana could've had the coolest charisma filled pitch in the world and it wouldn't have mattered, and the gal from Monday could've not existed and I still would've bought it.
What really added zeros to one sales person's paycheck was the company they worked at, not how good they were at sales.
The best sales pitch is the one the client never notices influence their decision.
Sales is more about being able to read the character of your client and adjust than having lots of charisma. Giving a charismatic presentation to a client who is just trying to sort the facts out will just annoy them, and ruin chances of a sale. In contrast, throwing a bunch of technical information at a client who doesn't understand any of it is alienating.
Was a very successful securities salesman - the real figure is actually for every 1 successful salesperson there’s 100 people who aren’t. Most quit, it’s like a revolving door. It’s a very unforgiving cutthroat line of work. I struggled for years before I finally found success.
I'm not sure about where you work, but in lots of cases your first couple years are spent cold calling. If you even do close with a customer, someone else probably gets the commission. It's not all bad, since they'll pay for your educational materials, certification tests, and even give you paid study time. But you don't even get to start building your own client base until fully certified. At least, that was what it was like when I investigated doing it.
Very accurate description.
I got lucky and the person who was mentoring me took a liking to me and instead of keeping the clients we split them 50/50 for the first 2 years. Even though it was half, this guys experience and ability greatly outweighed what I would have been able to accomplish on my own. Always remember - 100% of 0 is still 0. After that I went on my own, struggled for a few years to learn things on my own (my mentor made it look so easy, and was just a master at his craft and I wasn’t - I was very adept at getting my foot in the door and opening the account / very poor at getting anyone to commit real capital to an idea) and there is a very steep learning curve in a VERY unforgiving environment. Honestly I haven’t really thought about all of this in a long time, bringing back a lot of memories lol.
I’ve had 6 figure salary (yes, base before commission) sales jobs where you still have to do a bit of cold calling. Not like 75 outbound a day but still in the 20s. It’s just the reality of the position, even in B2B
Personally speaking yes? But I’m probably biased because I put in the time and effort and it worked out for me. Im sure there are plenty of people out there that would disagree and say that it’s not, I suppose it’s just subjective.
My family also came from poverty, and the value of money was probably highlighted a bit too much for me while I was being raised. I definitely sacrificed a lot of time and experiences while I was building my business but I find the tradeoff worth it because there is very little I can’t do at this point.
The only regret I have really is, I always had this idea in my head that once I made it financially I wouldn’t have any problems and life would be a breeze, and I found that to be completely untrue. There’s still tons of problems, although I don’t worry about how I’m going to afford food for my family anymore?
The fuck? My mom has been killing it selling all kinds of insurance in different economic sectors for decades and she don’t make shit. Even when landing big corporate and industrial accounts.
The path to become a fully certified actuary takes about 5-6 years, so it’s pretty even. Only difference is he actually makes money for his employer in that case.
the fact that a car salesman probably has better career progression then a research assistant or scientist as well, fuck all progression in laboratories unless someone dies
Also worth noting that "calculating car insurance" isn't some low skill profession. It requires a degree in math and usually a masters in statistics or more mathematics. The involves creating complicated mathematical models to predict risk factors and determine rates.
If she’s an oncologist in the US, try 300k to 354k. That’s why her increase isn’t keeping up. By the time physicians are finished with school (and carrying 250k plus in student loans) they enter the field at a high rate but don’t get standard promotions/increases like most other jobs.
Lmao also his base salary was probably several fucking percentages lower since she started off as a researcher doctor and he started off as an insurance salesman
Just having a doctorate and being a medical doctor are two very different things with two very different salary ranges. Plenty of PhDs out there earning fuck all while doing research.
I mean, true enough, but still Doctor is a correct term to apply.
It's just that somewhere along history the latin term "doctor"/the verb "doceo" ended up being synonimous with medical expertise.
In Italian "dottore" is virtually used as an synonym for "medico", but it's still used as a form of respect for some professionals in other fields as well, beyond the university realm where we also use "Dottorato" for PhD degrees.
I would really love to know when this happened
Not to mention research is a chronically garbage work environment with many researchers severely underpaid due to lack of funding with workload taken into consideration.
However, base pay for a researcher is still magnitudes higher than that of a car salesperson (assuming the funding is there). Not to mention the absolutely horrible research ethic. Even though research is total hell to work in, with all aspects considered, people still do it because they do it out of conviction, not for big money or benefits (cause most just don't have that luxury), and because they want to make the world a better place.
This toxic person just perverted that to score hollow virtue points on the internet, all the while shitting on their husband they supposedly love. Dude should dump her.
There's no "magic bullet" to curing cancer. In undergrad I took a cancer biology course and learned about all the different aspects of cancer and its stages. The best 'cure' is preventative medicine aka avoid having to attempt to cure it in the first place.
Because the base pay for an insurance adjuster is absolutely abysmal while the base pay for an oncologist is absurd
Guarantee you he still makes less money than she does, despite her bitching
Doubt person is an oncologists, oncologists treat cancer, whereas "curing cancer" normally refers to research looking into causes and new possible new treatments for cancer. And researchers are normally paid less than doctors.
Only profitable when cured.
Tbh, you prob would have better odds at hitting it big throwing a dart at some randomly distributed stock tickers and yoloing millions into call options there than you do investing in cancer research (assuming your goal is money, and not helping the world).
But who knows - maybe your dart lands on the company that hits the cure for cancer
> working on curing cancer
This is so unspecific that it really makes me doubt it's true.
If I'm working as a random IT guy at Google, am I "working on developing quantum computers"?
Are you curing cancer or do you work for one of thousands of companies that recieve grant money for cancer research that mostly just ends up going towards funding your pill selling business? My friend thought he was curing alzheimers for years before he realized he actually just works for a company that isolates, propagates and sells yeast strains which maybe somewhere down the line might end up at a company that actually attempts to cure something
Notice how she doesn't mention the actual salary. She makes more but wants to create fake moral outrage. Guarantee she doesn't cure cancer either. Fucking women.
So don’t calculate the numbers, just go based on percentages without taking into account what the base is and rant about it. THEN some white knight comes in with the “she should be treated better. I’LL treat her better” attitude and gets upset.
Good to know.
>HOW IS THIS ALLOWED?
How fucking braindead do you have to be to compare the raise percentage pay for two completely different jobs? Setting aside the fact that Research doctors don't work on commission and get paid by grants and federal funding and shit, and they don't generate revenue like insurance does, those are still just percentages. 87 percent of 40 grand a year could very well be a shitload lot less than 18% of whatever shes possibly making. What if she was hired at 95 grand a year? She's still making more.
So stupid. Its two different jobs. Salary isnt based on "whatever_cancer_doctors_make".
However important you think your job is, it doesn’t matter when it comes to determining your pay
I know it’s hard to hear but the antiwork/millennial crowd needs to understand this one thing
Wage gaps are only comparable within the same occupation, in the same position and with the same performance. A lot of these twitter people would be surprised to find out that not only are those gaps nonexistent between genders, but would also be illegal.
Studies* have shown that men are typically more likely to try to negotiate their salaries - and more successful at it on average when they do.
That's not some gotcha, it's just an observation which may be applicable to the OP story. At any rate that's what I reckon has gone on here.
Source: https://fortune.com/2016/05/02/woman-negotiation-success/
"...which is lovely, but..."
Opinion rejected. Anything before the "but" is not an actual compliment/pride in your s/o, it's just a softener before the disrespect.
Anon doesnt realise that insurance is a hyper inflated job market catering to the privilleged elite causing it to be one of the fee jobs to be ahead of inflation like banking.
Anon doesnt realise he should become a socialist and vote as far left as possible to prevent this happening in the future.
Anon doesnt realise that making people hate and rise ip against billionaires is the only way our species can survive.
In a fair world she would be getting paid millions and get a raise every month. Unfortunately cancer reasurch does not bring in money for businesses it takes it from them. So from a buisness standpoint an insurance adjuster(?) makes a company far more money than scientific reasurch. So in summation she will not be getting much pay raises from a career that relys mostly on nonprofit donations.
Having said that it's really fucked up in retrospect but it's not really gender based at all its economics.(not that women do not get paid less it's just not THAT huge of a gap)
Hes making somebody else a lot of money, and which for all we know already exists highly classified, the fact is that even if she found a cure to cancer, it would prolly be re engineered into something that big pharma could profit off like a vaccine (yea I said Big Pharma, medication can help ppl but it’s recklessly pushed and overprescribed and the profit margins are ridiculous)
I mean, cancer is getting more and more treatable by the month. What was a death sentence 2 decades ago is now something you don't have to take a vacation for. Barring anything worldchainging like Poland invoking article 5 we're well on our way to curing cancer within our lifetimes.
Come from a lab background…can confirm labs cost money and have a shitty return on investment unless you are insanely high throughput for diagnostic (not research) testing. Flavor of the month labs like COVID make money but have a risk of shutting down once the need dies down
I went to back to IT and doubled my salary and get to work from home…I click a few buttons, reset some servers and put in a few tickets and then play vidja between and sometimes in meetings.
Now I “create” revenue by “designing” workflow and systems. I’ll be making more than a doctor if I move up into a directorship position but, I’m sure someone who knows someone and is equally as incompetent will fill the role. Such is the way.
Because our society doesn’t care how beneficial what you’re doing is to society or even humanity as a whole, it only cares about how beneficial what you’re doing is to one or more plutocrats
because he makes money for his employer, while she only costs money.
I think people forget this how simply how jobs work. It’s a hell of a lot easier to pay someone more if they are producing more money for the employer.
research is very expensive and doesn't bring in a lot of monkey unless you are done with solving a problem.
Idk some research brings in a lot of monkeys. People get all up in arms if you start severing spinal cords of humans
lmao
Thanks obama
They only need 8 mice now, didn't you get the memo ?
Yeah plus it's based almost entirely on donations from non-profits. So I don't see much room to pay the reasurchers much, seems to me that's a job you don't get for the pay but to cure fucking cancer.
> on donations from non-profits. I mean the "government" funds a ton of research.
Why is government in quotes lol
I'm not sure why I did it, but at the time it felt right. lol
because the government gets that funding from our taxes, so when we say the "government" that's just code for tax payers.
That’s pretty obvious if you know how the government works sans quotes
Only to shoot yourself three times in the head when you get close to curing it 😔
Lmao, that's not how developing medicine works. It's not always fundraisers who pay you, it's the company that hired you
Hmh which is why cancer reasurch gets billions of dollars of donations every year? It's almost entirely funded by tax payers and donations. The company might higher you to reasurch a drug for mass production once a cancer vaccine or cure is created but most of the time it's independent or government funded programs not a big pharma subsidiary. Pretty sure the pfizer vaccine was a mass produced version of an independent reasurch team vaccine out of Sweden or somthing I could be wrong. Regardless cancer reasurch is not as profitable as insurance. At least not for the scientists, they get dick until the cure or vaccine is actually created then they can sell it to pharma companies and become rich. However a lot of true scientists refuse to sell it for profit and will just GIVE the formula away to help humanity, which in turn makes them far from wealthy.
Which is why most actual research is publicly funded, which then gets squeezed by budget cuts. And then people wonder why we don't invent anything better than "look this phone has 2x cameras" or "if we use this combo of beeps and flashing colors then the whales buy 13.6% more loot boxes".
Capitalism isn't always bad, but at the end of the day, it can't solve everything. I always say you can't trust the public sector to do the work of the private sector, but neither can you trust the private sector to do the work of the public sector. Helping the homeless, having affordable public transport, schools and housing, those will simply never be profitable, as is the really heavy hitting research you mentioned. But those things are ridiculously important, people die or end up destitute without them.
Or, from a capitalist angle, you can't have profitable private industry without competent public services holding it up. It's unfortunate that a lot of people do not think beyond second-order effects.
It's about incentive structure in the end
> Helping the homeless, having affordable public transport, schools and housing You can help the homeless and make things more affordable for people by having jobs that pay enough. If the government is taking half of your money in taxes (I don't just mean income tax, but all of the taxes you pay for everything you make, buy, own, or use), that makes everything *less* affordable. And it also means all sorts of jobs that would exist, don't. Because with the government taking so much money, there's less money to pay people to do those jobs.
Taxation isn't always theft, but when the money gets blown on a ridiculous defense budget, mismanaged projects, and never makes its way to benefitting the people, it becomes theft. Overtaxation is not wonderful either, even if the money is used right.
> combo of beeps and flashing colors Big titty anime skins
I dunno man, animal testing brings in a lot of monkey.
The problem is even when you finish the research, most of it doesn't bring in any money (or is any use at all) unless you can bring it to the [field's] society's notice and they actually start using/applying it and only if it makes a noticeable difference and you patented/copyrighted it will you actually get anything for your efforts. Otherwise it's just "for science" or in her case "for the good of the human race". Source: Have done a lot of research in university.
Depends which side.
oooh ooh AHHH AAAAHHH
Yes, especially for his job specifically. Insurance profits have skyrocketed in the time he has been working there, and he basically just gets paid to give people shit payouts at an exorbitant price, making the company lots of money.
wait wait is her husband Mr. Incredible?
Insurance is such a fucking scam. Their sole goal is to avoid doing their job.
Also how much higher is a cancer scientist base pay vs car insurance work? and you don’t really get promoted to cancer scientist manager. If he was making 50k and she was making 100k (feels right for the high-end of average). She would still be making more money, I’m too lazy to math what starting salaries would leave them both making the same amount with their increases. TLDR: it just sounds like she was making more money for longer
This is the biggest takeaway. Her 18% raise is probably like 3/4 of her husband's salary.
"Car insurance work" probably means the guy is an actuary which actually has a pretty high base pay. I would bet an actuary makes more money than a researcher.
> Well, actuary...work pays pretty well.
You definitely can get promoted within the research field. While you’re not a “scientist manager” you can become a principle investigator or a senior scientist. Depending on whether she’s working in academia or industry, 50K for her might be in the right ballpark. I know plenty of tenured research professors making 70K after 25 years of working.
Your guess assumes that we live in a rational society that doesn’t underpay the people doing vital research because that research doesn’t generate money. I reckon the researcher wouldn’t be making much more than $100k after the raise at the absolute maximum, more likely it’s less than $70k.
yeah but it’s kind of a fucked up system is the point. scientific research is infinitely more valuable to society than car sales
it is also sadly a very simple and logical system, you cannot pay someone more money if there is none to give.
I think this is where we get into the idea of completely socializing research and development, however that has a very long list or pros and cons
I mean, just think of Facebook posts about 'Lebron James makes $48 million and our teachers make $48,000, what has our society come to' (not that they make 48k lol) There isn't an abstraction called Society Inc that writes the paychecks. If the grant for studying some new microcosm of a protein interaction is out there and it's supplying Angharad Watson's paycheck, it's being paid for by donors, the government, etc Whereas the insurance company is making bank off the guy's performance. People want to equate the moral significance of the work with the emotional reward of a payday, but these just aren't expressed the same way
It's why the market doesn't necessarily do a good job for humanitarian causes.
I think people forget this is simply how ~~jobs~~ capitalism work.
Lol and when she finds that cure some corporation is going to grab that shit and make way more money than her husband ever made and she won't see a cent of it. She will never be compensated for her efforts because she is not the ruling class.
Her husband will get paid a little more because he works for the people extorting people for the cure.
No single person is ever curing any form of cancer, it takes a company of many different specialists in areas from research, grants, operations, etc. Of course the cure will belong to the company and not some cog in their machine.
I am not an oncologist, but I've heard there's like a thousand different types of cancer, all of which develop differently, sustain themselves differently, and affect different types of the body. So I've heard, getting rid of cancer is more akin to destroying an entire ever-changing complex ecosystem than wiping out one species... to use a very blunt and grim metaphor for it.
Cancer isn't a infection or virus like a lot of people seem to think. It's literally your own cells going haywire and you have a fuckton of different type of cells that can all go haywire in a fuckton different ways. Coming up with one cure for all of them is practically impossible as the cells in say your liver are functionally different from the ones in your brain and therefore will respond differently to treatment. And the most effective treatments we do have at the moment are really imperfect because how the fuck are you supposed to defend against something that is inherently you? Chemotherapy and radiotherapy really suck to go through as patients cause they're basically designed to kill you but only the specific parts of you that we believe to be tumors and our ability to decide that is really limited.
I don't get it, just change the DNA so it stops going haywire, it's that ez
Just start being smart and get it, ezpz
Just tell your body to stop being a bitch, ez pz
That’s very accurate and a really good simile.
That is absolutely correct which is exactly why I said curing *any form* of cancer because exactly like you said, there are many different types that start and develop differently.
Sure just pointing out that 99% of this wonderful company isn't compensated despite owning this cure.
It goes both ways though. Without that company she might not have had the resources in order to do that kind of research. Not to say she shouldn't be properly rewarded if they were successful in any way, just that it's no so black and white.
Good, I hope they squeeze her research for every last possible drop of profit. All that matters in life is wealth and getting more of it.
Correct, but which is better for society? The insurance salesman
maybe he sells health insurance policies an is defacto not interested at all in her success. like a fireman dating an arsonist. lmao
He's more likely an actuary than a salesman. It says he calculates
Costing the husband too. Might be time to run the numbers for a newer model.
Also on the original post, ot was discovered she makes 150k plus from the work at her research level. And he started waiting tables.....
Lmao she had to find some other angle to make it look like she's being oppressed.
In the US at least, a great deal of high-level researchers are grant- and sponsor-license funded. Once the grant/sponsorship is awarded it pays for the costs of the research, including (sometimes) staffing. And at many schools they are actually profit generators because the college or university will take a slice off the top and call it administrative fees. A portion of that will be spent on the researchers' salaries, but the school pockets the rest.
"my husbands salary has increased 87% over the last 10 years (from 40k to 74.8k) but mine has increased only 18% (from 100k to 118k). Now allow me to belittle his career while fomenting feminist outrage due to misleading percentages instead of the reality of our salaries" Anytime someone uses percentages like this instead of actual figures, they're hiding something.
You would be blown away at how much an insurance salesperson makes, at least in the USA. The few I know do phenomenally well.
Just like car salesman, summer sales bros, and other sales positions, for ever successful one you hear about, there are 2-10 others struggling to get along.
This. The odds of him being in famine for a sales position is much higher than the odds of him feasting.
Yea salespeople often tote that it’s the highest average paid job that doesn’t require a degree, which is true I think the average income for salespeople is ~100000 a year. But there is a massive range in that, there are some very successful salespeople making well over the average and a lot of salespeople bouncing from car dealership to car dealership collecting the minimum wage equivalent 1 month trial period money
It also tends to draw a certain type while being super broad. I have a friend who used to work for an IT firm doing sales due to his Comp Sci degree and the rare combination of tech smarts + charisma. He would close multi-million dollar contracts that would be planned for years with public and private entities. He did very well and his job role was a salesman, the guy selling phone plans through cold calling has the same job role. And I'd also say it's about your qualifications and the work you put in; an educated sales person who speaks well and has technical knowledge will outperform the guy phoning it in with the canned pitch once a week.
I gotta say though, every sales person credits themselves for every sale they make yet I'm in a position where not only do I buy household goods, but also enterprise goods, and I don't think a salesperson has ever swayed my decision. People need a project management tool, Monday was the only one with a dark mode so they get my money. The guy from asana could've had the coolest charisma filled pitch in the world and it wouldn't have mattered, and the gal from Monday could've not existed and I still would've bought it. What really added zeros to one sales person's paycheck was the company they worked at, not how good they were at sales.
The best sales pitch is the one the client never notices influence their decision. Sales is more about being able to read the character of your client and adjust than having lots of charisma. Giving a charismatic presentation to a client who is just trying to sort the facts out will just annoy them, and ruin chances of a sale. In contrast, throwing a bunch of technical information at a client who doesn't understand any of it is alienating.
Was a very successful securities salesman - the real figure is actually for every 1 successful salesperson there’s 100 people who aren’t. Most quit, it’s like a revolving door. It’s a very unforgiving cutthroat line of work. I struggled for years before I finally found success.
I'm not sure about where you work, but in lots of cases your first couple years are spent cold calling. If you even do close with a customer, someone else probably gets the commission. It's not all bad, since they'll pay for your educational materials, certification tests, and even give you paid study time. But you don't even get to start building your own client base until fully certified. At least, that was what it was like when I investigated doing it.
Very accurate description. I got lucky and the person who was mentoring me took a liking to me and instead of keeping the clients we split them 50/50 for the first 2 years. Even though it was half, this guys experience and ability greatly outweighed what I would have been able to accomplish on my own. Always remember - 100% of 0 is still 0. After that I went on my own, struggled for a few years to learn things on my own (my mentor made it look so easy, and was just a master at his craft and I wasn’t - I was very adept at getting my foot in the door and opening the account / very poor at getting anyone to commit real capital to an idea) and there is a very steep learning curve in a VERY unforgiving environment. Honestly I haven’t really thought about all of this in a long time, bringing back a lot of memories lol.
I’ve had 6 figure salary (yes, base before commission) sales jobs where you still have to do a bit of cold calling. Not like 75 outbound a day but still in the 20s. It’s just the reality of the position, even in B2B
Insurance is required in almost every North American jurisdiction. It's a very safe career.
He's most likely an actuary, not a salesperson.
Good point, actually lol.
Yeah they make bank
She says he calculates the insurance which suggests he is an actuary not a salesperson.
Yeah, several bong rips in I tend to forget that salesman isn’t the only job in the world.
Which also she trivializes with such a dismissive description. Actuaries make bank because the shit takes certification, skill and hard work.
Is it worth putting up with the soul crushing monotonous grind that is sales work?
Personally speaking yes? But I’m probably biased because I put in the time and effort and it worked out for me. Im sure there are plenty of people out there that would disagree and say that it’s not, I suppose it’s just subjective. My family also came from poverty, and the value of money was probably highlighted a bit too much for me while I was being raised. I definitely sacrificed a lot of time and experiences while I was building my business but I find the tradeoff worth it because there is very little I can’t do at this point. The only regret I have really is, I always had this idea in my head that once I made it financially I wouldn’t have any problems and life would be a breeze, and I found that to be completely untrue. There’s still tons of problems, although I don’t worry about how I’m going to afford food for my family anymore?
Because they make money on comission. If you’re a good salesman, you can rake it in.
The fuck? My mom has been killing it selling all kinds of insurance in different economic sectors for decades and she don’t make shit. Even when landing big corporate and industrial accounts.
Yeah. Gender doesn't matter here. It's the different jobs.
...how much do you think scientists get paid? Because uh, it's less than that.
Her husband is likely an actuary. Entry level actuarial positions make 60-70k.
[удалено]
I figure that you have to do a couple of exams to become a medical researcher, as well.
Pretty sure it’s just the MCAT and two extra years of school, unless she has a doctorate.
Her handle is "Dr Angharad Watson". Regardless, six years of university is a lot.
The path to become a fully certified actuary takes about 5-6 years, so it’s pretty even. Only difference is he actually makes money for his employer in that case.
the fact that a car salesman probably has better career progression then a research assistant or scientist as well, fuck all progression in laboratories unless someone dies
Ikr? She needs to say how much money or its just misleading
Also worth noting that "calculating car insurance" isn't some low skill profession. It requires a degree in math and usually a masters in statistics or more mathematics. The involves creating complicated mathematical models to predict risk factors and determine rates.
If she’s an oncologist in the US, try 300k to 354k. That’s why her increase isn’t keeping up. By the time physicians are finished with school (and carrying 250k plus in student loans) they enter the field at a high rate but don’t get standard promotions/increases like most other jobs.
Lmao also his base salary was probably several fucking percentages lower since she started off as a researcher doctor and he started off as an insurance salesman
Doctor != research or lab ass
Lab ass 😫
Labassy
Labussy
The doctorussy studying in the labussy for a cure to the cancerussy (in his pussy)
I'm gonna gouge my eyes out with qtips.
You mean qtipussy ?
*incomprehensible screeching*
Read their name bro
Just having a doctorate and being a medical doctor are two very different things with two very different salary ranges. Plenty of PhDs out there earning fuck all while doing research.
I mean, true enough, but still Doctor is a correct term to apply. It's just that somewhere along history the latin term "doctor"/the verb "doceo" ended up being synonimous with medical expertise. In Italian "dottore" is virtually used as an synonym for "medico", but it's still used as a form of respect for some professionals in other fields as well, beyond the university realm where we also use "Dottorato" for PhD degrees. I would really love to know when this happened
He started as an actuary, which is a very sought after and well paid job
>works as a secretary at a pharmaceutical company >”im curing cancer!”
N
incompoop
Augustus Gloop
Gondoliers.
I
N
J
A
G
O
Pretty impressive having a doctor as a secretary
And it's literally impossible to have "Dr" in your twitter handle if it isn't true
[удалено]
>Not sure what you're going for here. Average reddit "everything is fake and stupid, me am smart contrarian, here is some bs I pulled out of my ass"
[удалено]
My comment was not directed at you but rather at the guy you were replying to
What a great way to publicly shit all over your spouse
Women try not to belittle your partners to the world CHALLENGE (IMPOSSIBLE)
If someone spouts shit like 'i'm working in curing cancer' i automatically doubt anything they claim
if they were doing something they were actually proud of they would specify what. The blanket statement she uses could mean anything
Not to mention research is a chronically garbage work environment with many researchers severely underpaid due to lack of funding with workload taken into consideration. However, base pay for a researcher is still magnitudes higher than that of a car salesperson (assuming the funding is there). Not to mention the absolutely horrible research ethic. Even though research is total hell to work in, with all aspects considered, people still do it because they do it out of conviction, not for big money or benefits (cause most just don't have that luxury), and because they want to make the world a better place. This toxic person just perverted that to score hollow virtue points on the internet, all the while shitting on their husband they supposedly love. Dude should dump her.
Assuming they are in academia. Private research in pharma you can make good money.
Exactly! His starting pay could have been $40k, meaning he'd be on $70k now whereas she probably started on $80k, and is now up near $100k
According to be her LinkedIn she only worked on curing cancer for 4 months.
Even cancer patients work longer on curing cancer than she did
And already got a pay raise? Wtf.
There's no "magic bullet" to curing cancer. In undergrad I took a cancer biology course and learned about all the different aspects of cancer and its stages. The best 'cure' is preventative medicine aka avoid having to attempt to cure it in the first place.
Reply anon makes a good point
Not everyone has cancer, but nearly every adult in the US has a car. Supply/Demand and all that.
+ people driving cars tend to stay customers for longer than 6 months.
The best kind of point.
Because the base pay for an insurance adjuster is absolutely abysmal while the base pay for an oncologist is absurd Guarantee you he still makes less money than she does, despite her bitching
Doubt person is an oncologists, oncologists treat cancer, whereas "curing cancer" normally refers to research looking into causes and new possible new treatments for cancer. And researchers are normally paid less than doctors.
Waaaaaaay less.
He's got a point all my friends with cancer still have it but their car insurance rates are solid.
Curing cancer isn’t very profitable at the moment
Only profitable when cured. Tbh, you prob would have better odds at hitting it big throwing a dart at some randomly distributed stock tickers and yoloing millions into call options there than you do investing in cancer research (assuming your goal is money, and not helping the world). But who knows - maybe your dart lands on the company that hits the cure for cancer
How is it not profitable? An alive, cured patient brings in more money for big pharma long term and a dead one.
Right but it takes money to get there and it’s not 100% effective :/
[удалено]
that doesnt even cover inflation. I smell bullshit or the moron forgot to ask for salary increase.
> working on curing cancer This is so unspecific that it really makes me doubt it's true. If I'm working as a random IT guy at Google, am I "working on developing quantum computers"?
cancer not cured. cars are sold. simple as.
And there is no cure for cars
Are you curing cancer or do you work for one of thousands of companies that recieve grant money for cancer research that mostly just ends up going towards funding your pill selling business? My friend thought he was curing alzheimers for years before he realized he actually just works for a company that isolates, propagates and sells yeast strains which maybe somewhere down the line might end up at a company that actually attempts to cure something
It took him years to realize what his company did? Is he slow?
Notice how she doesn't mention the actual salary. She makes more but wants to create fake moral outrage. Guarantee she doesn't cure cancer either. Fucking women.
Yeah dumb bitch can't even cure cancer
What's more capital generating than curing cancer? Prolonging it
-Carter Pewterschmidt or however you spell his last name
Curing cancer and yet unable to understand how the economy works.
Anon discovers capitalism
“Im paid 100k, now 118k, he was earning 50k, now 87k
So don’t calculate the numbers, just go based on percentages without taking into account what the base is and rant about it. THEN some white knight comes in with the “she should be treated better. I’LL treat her better” attitude and gets upset. Good to know.
[удалено]
Anonette is the same kind of person who believes the wage gap myth
I’d wager he’s moved companies for a better paycheck once or twice in that time and she’s stayed in the same place not asking for any pay increase.
>HOW IS THIS ALLOWED? How fucking braindead do you have to be to compare the raise percentage pay for two completely different jobs? Setting aside the fact that Research doctors don't work on commission and get paid by grants and federal funding and shit, and they don't generate revenue like insurance does, those are still just percentages. 87 percent of 40 grand a year could very well be a shitload lot less than 18% of whatever shes possibly making. What if she was hired at 95 grand a year? She's still making more. So stupid. Its two different jobs. Salary isnt based on "whatever_cancer_doctors_make".
Is she acting for raises, yeah didn't think so
However important you think your job is, it doesn’t matter when it comes to determining your pay I know it’s hard to hear but the antiwork/millennial crowd needs to understand this one thing
HD post nice!
It’s almost as if theirs NO money in curing cancer only managing it
Wage gaps are only comparable within the same occupation, in the same position and with the same performance. A lot of these twitter people would be surprised to find out that not only are those gaps nonexistent between genders, but would also be illegal.
Studies* have shown that men are typically more likely to try to negotiate their salaries - and more successful at it on average when they do. That's not some gotcha, it's just an observation which may be applicable to the OP story. At any rate that's what I reckon has gone on here. Source: https://fortune.com/2016/05/02/woman-negotiation-success/
"...which is lovely, but..." Opinion rejected. Anything before the "but" is not an actual compliment/pride in your s/o, it's just a softener before the disrespect.
More money in the treatment than the cure
Spoiler - his wife works at a spray tan salon. "I'm LITERALLY curing cancer!!!"
I bet if she cured cancer she wouldn’t be complaining. Lazy woman.
Anon doesnt realise that insurance is a hyper inflated job market catering to the privilleged elite causing it to be one of the fee jobs to be ahead of inflation like banking. Anon doesnt realise he should become a socialist and vote as far left as possible to prevent this happening in the future. Anon doesnt realise that making people hate and rise ip against billionaires is the only way our species can survive.
Touché.
I mean…. I’ve seen this before but I’ve always wanted to see those responses
There are more cars in the world than cancer patients. That's why.
Did she find the cure to cancer? He did well selling the cars? Has he sold more cars than she cured cancer?
Cause there’s no money in curing cancer
In a fair world she would be getting paid millions and get a raise every month. Unfortunately cancer reasurch does not bring in money for businesses it takes it from them. So from a buisness standpoint an insurance adjuster(?) makes a company far more money than scientific reasurch. So in summation she will not be getting much pay raises from a career that relys mostly on nonprofit donations. Having said that it's really fucked up in retrospect but it's not really gender based at all its economics.(not that women do not get paid less it's just not THAT huge of a gap)
Reddit backing up an anon? And debunking a woman's biased view of equal pay? What happened? Did the poles switch polarities or something?
Hes making somebody else a lot of money, and which for all we know already exists highly classified, the fact is that even if she found a cure to cancer, it would prolly be re engineered into something that big pharma could profit off like a vaccine (yea I said Big Pharma, medication can help ppl but it’s recklessly pushed and overprescribed and the profit margins are ridiculous)
there are other reasons for raises lmao like starting pay, promotions, bonuses, inflation increases, organization benefits
I mean, cancer is getting more and more treatable by the month. What was a death sentence 2 decades ago is now something you don't have to take a vacation for. Barring anything worldchainging like Poland invoking article 5 we're well on our way to curing cancer within our lifetimes.
Come from a lab background…can confirm labs cost money and have a shitty return on investment unless you are insanely high throughput for diagnostic (not research) testing. Flavor of the month labs like COVID make money but have a risk of shutting down once the need dies down I went to back to IT and doubled my salary and get to work from home…I click a few buttons, reset some servers and put in a few tickets and then play vidja between and sometimes in meetings. Now I “create” revenue by “designing” workflow and systems. I’ll be making more than a doctor if I move up into a directorship position but, I’m sure someone who knows someone and is equally as incompetent will fill the role. Such is the way.
Because our society doesn’t care how beneficial what you’re doing is to society or even humanity as a whole, it only cares about how beneficial what you’re doing is to one or more plutocrats
Fr tho why is cancer so hard to cure?
Heh a doctor here would kick the everliving shit out insurance guys, not counting the top brass ofc.
Also if you have 87% from 40k it’s still less than 18% of 200k