If there is a job, say museum docent, that the majority of qualified people would love to do then the salary of that job will approach $0. Museum docents are usually volunteers, but the chance for an art history major to practice their craft is valuable to the worker even at $0
Sure. But then you are assuming that what I love is what other people love.
If there's only very few people who want to do those job, and I'm one of them. Should the pay be less only because I happen to love the job?
If you love a job that only very few people love, you can still make demands and request a high salary.
The more enjoyable a job is, the lower the salary the boss can offer before people balk at taking it. It isn't something you can suss out in individual cases, but statistically speaking it holds up.
When I sysadminned in the turn of the millenium, I could definitely see the pay gap between running systems for corporate America and doing it for scientists in academia.
This is not in line what I saw when I worked as a contractor. The higher the pay was, the better people got treated. The worst places were non-profits where people took really low salaries. They not only didn't make money but were also treated like sh.t.
Balk:
Hesitate or be unwilling to accept an idea or proposal.
> The more enjoyable a job is, the lower the salary the boss can offer before people [hesitate to] take it.
I don't buy that. I don't think enjoying your job and being paid well need to be mutually exclusive. I think it's in an employer's best interest that their employees enjoy their job. Part of that is that an employee has to not feel the stress of being underpaid or overworked.