The discussion took a completely different turn - but nonetheless it is interesting. I guess we all have different aspirations for life - money might have some priorities - but as an undergrad planning to major in Math/Econ, I guess you'd have to compare the utility people receive from their professions to truly compare professions. Max Weber came up with this notion of vocation - where you're made for the job, and like the job (essentially it is not work for you, but rather a part of your life) - in his essay "politics as a vocation" and I pretty much feel the same. It is rather the amount of satisfaction that one gets from his work that truly measures the value of one's work, and this thing being ordinal, it might be better not to compare across occupations, just by the measure of money. Then again, we are all money-minded to a certain extent, so a better comparison might be made of the average salary across occupations. But then why should we care about average salaries if we want to be the best at what we do? (I guess everyone wants to excel). So I guess it essentially boils down to this - No profession is bad, when you're really good at it. And, if you do not excel, you have to look for other options. I hope I make some sense!