Knowledge comes at a price

I caught this one line from a user on another board that really stuck with me, though I didn't have the patience to slog through the entire thread.

"Is knowledge worth paying for?" What’s your take? What kind of expertise are we even talking about here if you want to actually see a return on that investment?

In my opinion, in this crazy digital age, nobody is actually paying for "knowledge." They're paying for how you use it—the actual, tangible results you pull off. It's all about the end product, the practical application, the bottom line.

I'm genuinely curious what you guys think. What's the point of an employee having a mountain of specialized info if they can't actually apply it? Or if that info is useless the second a project hits a snag?

Knowledge comes at a price... sure enough

but ignorance? That'll cost you way more!😎

Ultimately, you need the know-how to actually monetize what you know. 😉

Knowledge is definitely a paid commodity. Take software development and maintenance, for instance—that’s essentially just selling expertise. 🙂

Admitting how much you actually don't know is probably the first real step toward learning anything at all. 👍

Jerry Moore2 said:In this age of the digital revolution, I don't think people actually pay for raw knowledge anymore... what they pay for is the ability to apply it—the actual, tangible results you get when you put that info to work. Basically, you're paying for the successful application of what you know.

Honestly, I can't add anything else to that.

Jerry Moore2 said:One particular sentiment expressed by a user here caught my eye, though I couldn't be bothered to wade through the entire thread to find its origin..

Does knowledge carry a price tag? What are your thoughts? Specifically, what kind of expertise are we talking about if one expects to be compensated fairly for it..

In America, there’s still a fundamental lack of appreciation for how expensive intellectual capital actually is. People will happily pay a mechanic or a contractor to fix a house, but when it comes to high-level consulting or specialized software services, they balk—claiming "it's just sitting behind a computer all day."

Then, inevitably, the IRS hits them with a massive penalty because they skimped on a quality accountant, or a ransomware attack wipes out half their data because they thought a Cybersecurity Inc. specialist was too expensive. That's when the complaining starts.

To be blunt, I see companies across the States offering essential, cutting-edge services struggling to stay afloat because they're deemed "too pricey." Meanwhile, a firm might turn down a Cybersecurity Inc. contract but somehow finds the budget for a new Audi. They act shocked when a foreign competitor swoops in and captures the market after they stumble, but those international firms usually invest heavily in top-tier experts and drive a Ford. 🙂

I’ve even seen businesses face near-catastrophic failures on half-million-dollar contracts simply because, when hiring for a critical leadership role, they chose the candidate with the lowest salary demand instead of the most capable professional.

Of course you pay for it. Especially when you actually know how to turn that expertise into real value... 🙂

Jamie Newman40 said:Of course you charge for it. Especially if you actually know how to put a price tag on what you know... 🙂

Look, you're right, but you have to realize that the price for expertise depends entirely on market demand. If there’s a massive pool of people who actually possess the skill—or even just those who claim they do😉 then the value of that knowledge just tanks..

Specifically here in the US, you really have to ask yourself: how many people are actually paying for expertise versus how many people actually KNOW what they're doing?..

And honestly, I wonder how this whole balance is going to shift as the years go by..

If the one paying for that expertise is some big foreign investor operating in the States, they might just decide that if the talent in the US is too expensive, they'll just move their entire operation to wherever it's cheaper.. and if local businesses want to keep that investor from leaving the area, they'll end up slashing their own rates just to stay competitive..

Same goes for local employers. If they find specialized talent too pricey, they'll just hand over the business and the payroll to someone else with deeper pockets who can afford the premium..

Jerry Moore2 said:If local employers find specialized expertise too expensive to bother with, they’ll eventually just outsource those roles to whoever holds more market leverage...

And that is exactly what we are seeing—though I don't think it's strictly a matter of cost. It's more a lack of basic awareness regarding how vital this expertise actually is.

In my experience, foreign firms tend to compensate much better because they actually grasp the value of what they're buying; they understand that if they build a massive warehouse without properly analyzing the market, they'll just end up with an empty building. Meanwhile, among our domestic entrepreneurs, there is still this stubborn, outdated mentality where the physical real estate is seen as the primary asset, rather than the quality of the workforce occupying it.

Look, goldengull3, you have to see this from two different angles: the employer's view, who's paying for expertise, and the employee's view, who's selling it..

In the real world, you often run into these absolute geniuses. For them, money isn't even the main driver; they’ve found their sweet spot, they stay put for years, and they end up generating millions for the company..
Don't give me any excuses about why they don't move up. One of the biggest reasons I've seen in my own life is that they are just genuinely obsessed with their work.. plus, they get manipulated by management.. and honestly, they just don't know how to market themselves. That's the genius type for you.

Then you have the complete opposite: people who are incredible at selling themselves, even though their actual skills are ten levels below that first guy. Those are the hustlers.

Sadly, the paychecks for the hustler and the genius are almost identical.. hell, sometimes the hustler actually pulls in a tiny bit more..

Then there's the third group—people who never advance, just doing the same repetitive grind forever while pouring all their energy into hobbies. I call them the "mediocre middle."

That third group is basically facing extinction in the global market. It all comes down to the bottom line, and employers aren't interested in paying for someone whose value just stagnates over time..

Now, try putting yourself in the shoes of an employer hiring someone. An employer knows a job can be finished by a certain deadline if a genius handles it.. but geniuses are rare on the market. Most of the time, you're stuck dealing with hustlers who might finish the job, but will they hit the deadline? And what kind of extra costs are they going to rack up along the way?

With technology evolving, modern bosses don't really care about keeping full-time staff around just to slowly go through the motions. They're shifting toward specialized firms that guarantee the job gets done "by this date or that date." Sometimes those companies are just individuals. These freelancers want to work as fast and efficiently as possible because they live on referrals and they always have the next gig lined up..

An employer doesn't have to worry about benefits, 401(k)s, or health insurance for them.. the turnaround time gets shorter, which means labor costs drop too..

So.. think about the person running that one-man shop. Think about how fast they have to learn and execute just to make a living and survive the competition.. the mental pressure is insane..
And then you have to ask yourself: what does the future look like for a regular worker? How long can they actually endure that kind of psychological and physical grind?

There's also the issue of how "expertise" is interpreted..

For instance, I ran into some legal trouble once. In a total panic, I reached out to a FAMOUS law firm that had helped me with something else in the past..

And.. voilà.. within a few days, they sent over a printed analysis of my case and a list of steps they recommended I take.. I paid a fortune for it.. but just as I was about to follow their advice, I decided to talk to someone who wasn't a lawyer, but had been doing the exact same thing for 25 years..

To my absolute shock, this person—who was incredibly experienced with the specific problem I had—pointed out exactly why the steps suggested by the law firm were wrong.. they even showed me the loopholes in the law that actually worked in my favor.. I settled the whole thing quickly and easily, and all that knowledge I got from an "experienced businessman" didn't cost me a dime.

Jerry Moore2 said:To my absolute surprise, this individual—someone who actually understood the specific mess I was dealing with—pointed out why following the advice from my legal team would have been a massive mistake. They showed me exactly where the loopholes in the law were that worked in my favor, which allowed me to wrap up the whole situation incredibly fast and easy, all thanks to some free wisdom dropped by an 'experienced businessman.'

There’s an old saying that if you hang around "smart, successful people," you eventually become one yourself, mostly because you soak up their experience and catch those little nuggets of insight that aren't worth a dime in a textbook but are worth a fortune in reality.

You just have to swallow your pride, shut up, and actually listen to people—even those who might seem less accomplished than you—and you'll find a wealth of free knowledge waiting there; after all, true experience is the only teacher that matters, since any theory that doesn't work in the real world is pretty much useless.

Jerry Moore2 said:With tech moving as fast as it does, why would any modern boss want to deal with the headache of full-time staff who just sort of drift through their tasks? It doesn't make sense anymore. They’re all pivoting toward specialized firms that can just step in and knock out a project from point A to point B. And honestly, sometimes those "firms" are just single freelancers looking to crush it as fast as possible because they need the glowing reviews to land the next gig...

The whole thing with outsourcing to specialty shops isn't even news in the corporate world. Companies have been doing this forever—starting with the peripheral stuff like security guards, janitors, drivers, or IT support, and then eventually moving up to business software, marketing, legal services, and pretty much everything else. It’s not some grand revelation; it’s just basic math. Nowadays, everyone needs a massive array of complex services that you simply buy off the shelf.

But, hold on a second... Every company has what we call its "core business," right? That one specific niche where they’re actually elite (or maybe just have a monopoly 😁) and that’s where the actual money comes from. You can't really outsource that part; you need your own people in the trenches because they are the ones driving the revenue—they are the specialists being talked about. Even in certain professions, that might just be a one-person show. It’s a pretty clean way to run things: you focus exclusively on what you’re legendary at and just buy everything else on the market at the best price you can find.

Of course, this whole shift causes some serious social tremors. Back in the old days under the old socialist systems, people doing "non-specialized" jobs—you know, the roles anyone could fill like cleaners, drivers, or building supers—actually had steady employment and a decent standing within companies. Now? They’re stuck in these hyper-unstable roles at service agencies, competing against college kids, under-the-table workers, and anyone else willing to work for peanuts. You see it with high-skill jobs too. There’s a massive difference between a PC technician working directly for AT&T versus someone working for an AT&T subcontractor who has to squeeze out the lowest possible bid to the big guys just so they can afford to buy an Audi 😢 before they even think about paying their employees.

If I’m being honest, the whole setup seems like progress for anyone who actually possesses real skills or knowledge. If you’re part of the core business (which is all there is, really 😁), you’re valued because you generate the cash, and you’re forced to constantly sharpen your tools if you want to stay relevant 😁. For everyone else, the system isn't exactly a dream, but let's face it—life was only easy for them back when the old socialist era was still a thing...

Now, naturally, someone is going to start whining about crazy deadlines being baked into these contracts. And sure, that’s a valid point, especially in certain industries, but it’s also a cold hard fact that you can only squeeze so many units of QUALITY work out of a human being in a given timeframe. Anything beyond that is basically garbage, and that reality is eventually going to carry some weight when it comes to negotiating those deadlines.

Jerry Moore2, you’ve touched on a fascinating subject here. Among other things, you mentioned the mechanics of how knowledge is actually sold.

Knowledge—as you pointed out—is essentially a commodity; its market value fluctuates based on supply and demand. However, when it comes to the actual sale of expertise, there are certain nuances to consider.

Take software development, for instance. We’re seeing a massive surge in outsourcing. For large-scale projects, companies often look toward firms in overseas markets where labor is significantly more affordable—meaning knowledge is frequently purchased at a steep discount. Initially, these projects can actually be more expensive due to the onboarding process, but once the rhythm is established? They almost always end up being the more cost-effective route for the client. It certainly doesn't help the "local" software firms, whose pricing tends to be much higher.

Then there is the consulting model, which drives many major projects today. I actually provide consulting services myself. With my current client, the IT department is structured quite specifically: about 30% of the staff are full-time employees, while the remaining 70% are consultants from external software houses. It allows the client to minimize long-term liabilities and manage overhead more fluidly. They maintain an in-house core for development, yet they can scale their headcount up or down whenever necessary. Once the initial applications are built, they have just enough internal staff left to handle maintenance.

In this environment, it’s actually easier for seasoned professionals to sell their expertise—if you know how to find the right clients. Interestingly, many major software firms here in the US base their entire business model on this consulting principle. Very little is developed "in-house"; instead, most work happens on-site with the client. In many ways, it boils down to renting out specialized talent. Of course, I'm referring to large-scale enterprise software. These software houses function more like specialized agencies for sourcing tech talent, which makes them far more flexible in a shifting market.

Look, I see it this way: say my car breaks down, right? I don't have a clue how to fix it. So, I find someone who does, and obviously, you pay for that expertise.

The only real question is how much you’re willing to shell out for that knowledge and how you actually measure its value. In the end, it all just comes down to how much they spend on self-promotion.

goldengull3 said:In America, people still don't get that intellectual capital actually costs money. Everyone is happy to cut a check for an auto mechanic or a contractor, but if you try to charge for high-end consulting or specialized IT services, they balk because "it's just typing on a computer."

Then, once the IRS hits them with a massive fine because they hired a cheap accountant, or some malware wipes out half their data because they thought a Cybersecurity Inc. pro was too expensive—that's when the whining starts.

Yeah. Honestly, even in the West, it isn't much better😢. Sure, maybe things are slightly different, but it’s still a struggle if you’re dealing with small businesses or freelancers; everything feels overpriced to them, even though by the time they pay you, you've basically worked for free after expenses.
Usually, these types aren't willing to drop real cash until something goes sideways. Once the disaster hits, suddenly they're all ears.

The funniest part is when you offer your services as an individual—nobody wants to pay. But if you're working through a company that "looks" big, you can charge 30-40% more for the exact same job because people just assume "well, that's just what it costs." It's a total circus.

Megan Sullivan52, which Western country specifically are you referring to?

Benjamin Rodriguez2 said:Look, this whole shift causes some serious social tremors. Back in the old socialist days, people doing "unskilled" jobs—cleaners, drivers, porters—they had steady work and at least some kind of standing within companies. Nowadays? They’re stuck in these super precarious gig-economy roles through service firms, constantly fighting off students or under-the-table workers who are willing to take even less. It's the same with more specialized roles too. There's a massive difference between being a PC technician at AT&T versus working for one of AT&T's subcontractors. Those subcontractors have to lowball their bids just to stay competitive, which means they'll buy themselves an Audi 😢 before they ever think about paying a decent wage to a worker. That's just how the game works here in America.

Honestly, to me, this whole thing looks like progress for anyone who actually possesses real skills or knowledge. They work for companies where they *are* the core business (there isn't anything else 😁), they're valued because they actually bring in the cash, and they have to keep leveling up if they want to keep making money 😁. For everyone else, this system sucks, but let's be real—those people only had it easy during socialism..

Now, I'm sure someone's going to jump in here and start whining about insane deadlines being set in contracts. Sure, that happens, especially in certain industries. But it's also a fact that you can only squeeze so much quality out of a person in a given timeframe. Anything beyond that is basically garbage, and that reality should—and likely will—have weight when those deadlines are being negotiated.

Listen... when we're talking about foreign investors acting as employers... America (given the unemployment numbers) isn't in a position to dictate terms. The employer dictates the terms... which naturally makes them worse..

If the government tries to step in with labor regulations to stop this, they'll just drive the investors away, and then we're back to square one..

This just gives local capitalists room to follow the exact same playbook..

The goal of a capitalist is to minimize costs... on labor... on everything..
And that mindset isn't changing; if anything, it's getting more ruthless over the years. If you're an individual selling your expertise as labor, you have to learn and advance at lightning speed—both in what you know and what you charge—just to stay ahead of the market supply..

And look, staying "in the game" isn't easy.. not mentally, not physically, and definitely not financially..
If you aren't generating money for the capitalists, they'll fire you. If you're too expensive, they'll find someone cheaper (if they can find anyone at all) ..

All of this puts immense pressure on the individual trying to sell their knowledge and labor

Gary Cox72 said:Megan Sullivan52, which Western country are you actually talking about here?

The USA.

Benjamin Rodriguez2 said:To be honest, the whole situation looks like progress to me, specifically for people with specialized skills. They work for companies where they are the core business—there isn't anything else 😁—they are highly valued because they generate revenue, and they have to constantly upskill if they want to stay profitable 😁. This entire system wasn't really built for everyone else, but then again, those people had it easy back when we were living under socialism
.

I've reached that same conclusion. I also noticed that it's precisely the least educated group that tends to be the most extreme advocates for changing the social order.

Jerry Moore2 said:Look... if we’re talking about foreign investors coming in as employers, America—given the unemployment numbers—just isn't in a position to dictate terms. The employer is going to set the rules, which basically means the conditions are always going to be worse for the worker...

If the government tries to step in with some heavy-handed labor regulations to stop this, they’ll just end up driving those investors away, and then we're back at square one, right?

....
The whole thing just puts massive pressure on the individual who's out there trying to sell their brainpower or their sweat...

It’s pretty obvious you aren’t living here in the States, so you’re making some pretty huge generalizations. We don't actually have a massive unemployment problem over here. 😎 Don't believe me? Fine. When JPMorgan Chase puts out an ad for an economics intern or a cashier, they get 300 applicants instantly.

But when you start looking for people with specialized skills, actual experience, and fluency in a foreign language—especially if the job posting says "must be under 40"—then the pool gets incredibly small, particularly if the employer isn't some big-name corporation. And everyone knows what someone like that is worth. For those types of professionals in America, wages have been climbing steadily for years, not dropping. Once more foreign investors flood in, the demand for those specific people is only going to skyrocket. 😁