who is paid more scientist or actor
Answers
Answer:
actors
Explanation:
hope it helps and please mark me as brainliest
Explanation:
Part 1
Let us get the first and the obvious one out of the way.
Film acting is a sort of ‘winner takes all’ game. There is a massive skew in favour of well known actors. Which means that while Salman Khan may earn 50 crores per film, most ‘actors’ would struggle to earn enough to survive.
Many aspiring actors run around to get odd roles, and may end up as extras in the group dances (the synchronized tamasha in large groups, which goes in the name of dancing).
Which means, if say 100 rupees is earned by all actors together, 80% may go to the top 5%, while the bottom 50% may virtually starve. And I say this with genuine sadness.
When we say actors get paid well, we are talking about the top 20 guys in the industry, or even top 5.
But why is this the case? Here is a short answer: audience flock to theatres for big brand actors, and rarely for subtlety of acting or because the director is so and so.
As an actor if I know that my name pulls in the audience, why would I not extract my pound of flesh?
If you are not convinced, here is a hypothetical scenario. Take the last 5 movies of Salman Khan and replace him with some unknown guy with similar looks and (over)acting skills. The movies that made 100 Cr will struggle to make even 5 Cr. That is why bhai makes so much money. It is pure economics.
Now let us go to scientists. Most of them earn comparable salaries. Which means very few are millionaires, but at the same time nobody starves as long as they get a job. In India, the government salaries are based on pay band, which is a reflection more of age than merit.
Even in the US, where Universities negotiate salaries, big name professors get paid more but the differences between a well known researcher and others would be not be a factor of 1,000. In other words, research or teaching is not a ‘winner takes all’ industry.
Part 2
But there is another reason why scientists make less money.
Imagine that you go to a top scientist in TIFR or IISc and offer him twice the salary to join in a company in a corporate role, he will refuse even if he has those skills.
Well, now let us make the salary three times! They will still say no. Now make it 10 times. There is a good chance that many will still decline.
Most good scientists want to do research because they love it, and they love the lifestyle and freedom which comes with it. In Economics jargon, they get significant ‘utility’ out of their jobs beyond the salary.
If someone loves doing a job, they will be willing to work for less.
Once I met Rajesh Gopakumar, who was IITJEE All India Rank 1 in 1987 and studied Physics at IIT Kanpur. A very humble guy, he is a scientist at Harishchandra Institute doing research in string theory. He makes a regular government salary. Now if you offer him 10 times the salary to do research for Google or Facebook, will he accept? I am pretty sure he won’t.
Another example: In the University of Pennsylvania, where I did my MBA, the starting salary of an Assistant Prof. in the Engineering school is half of that of an Assistant Prof. at the Business School (Wharton). How do we explain that?
I would argue that partly it is because the PhDs in business management are more open to other roles in the industry and to attract them to teaching you have to sweeten the deal.
On the other hand, a researcher in quantum computing or condensed matter physics will probably do their research that regardless of what the pay is. That is why post-doctoral fellows at world’s top institutions with dangerously high IQs work for very ordinary salaries.
However, don’t assume that just because a scientist makes less money, he gets less from his job. It is just that he gets ‘things’ that ordinary mortals don’t understand or value.
FOLLOW ME
MARK AS BRAINLIST