> Do we really think the top lifeguard in LA is putting his life at risk?

Risk is meaningful to this discussion in that it deters people from taking the job. That reduces supply and boosts price. I don’t think lifeguards are paid a premium for being supply constrained.

California has a public sector compensation problem. (In particular, its unwillingness to investigate overtime fraud.) But estimating pay solely based on how dangerous the job is won’t be accurate.

Being a lifeguard in LA would be a dream job for millions of people especially if they could make $400k a year doing it!

This is low skilled labor! The only requirement is to be a strong swimmer and have basic leadership skills.

I don't think supply of willing lifeguards is a constraint here.

I'd imagine if LA county put out an ad to replace their top lifeguard and offered even $200k a year they'd receive thousands of applications from perfectly qualified people.

> This is low skilled labor

Agree with everything you said except this.

Teenagers lifeguarding at suburban pools is unskilled labor. For an urban beach, I want someone with medical training—say, a paramedic—as well as knowledge of the local oceanography and meteorology. They need to be able to pull people out of the water, yes, but also be able to close beaches when they become unsafe and anticipate when things will become unsafe.

The dude making $400k is managing something like a thousand people. How is that unskilled labor?

Accurately calculating the risk of a lifeguard job seems tough to me. It seems to me it’s a rather binary risk. You either don’t drown or you drown, but obviously the less probable of those outcomes is very serious. In other dangerous jobs, there is more of a gradient of danger.

Saving a panicky drowning person can involve them punching you etc. Local hazards can include sea life, infections, debris, rocks etc leading to a host of serious injuries.

Lifeguards are taught to push dangerous panicky people under the water and approach from behind to reduce their threat.

I'm surprised that small engine mechanics are #18 and supervisors of mechanics are #19. Since the two are so closely correlated, perhaps this is caused by duels or something violently similar, between mechanics and supervisors of mechanics. It just seems it shouldn't be life-threateningly dangerous to be a small engine mechanic.

It'll be car crashes. Any job where you're in the field around vehicles will be pretty dangerous. It's why garbage collectors and delivery drivers are high on that list too.

Cars are very convenient, and necessary in many places. But we really underestimate just how dangerous they are, and how bad the US is at regulating them. Our society is nearly identical to Canada, yet we have twice the traffic fatality rate. Something has gone very wrong with US car culture.

I don't know, but if he's managing a lot of people and made it so that those people also get highly paid - he's built a little empire. Maybe that's wrong. But these are also people that save lives. If you cut off the top, and try to keep the lower levels, when is a new "top dog" going to take over and demand high pay again?

Lifeguarding in LA is a combination safety job and entertainment job. LA depends a lot on tourism, and specifically beach tourism. Keeping the beaches safe is very important for tourism.