"Hi. I'm a President" "And I'm a model"

President: I am the President of the United States for the next four years.

Model: I walk down small runways.

P: I deal with signing bills, foreign relations, military strategies, and the economy.

M: I walk down small runways in post modern abstract clothing.

P: I was a Senator before this.

M: I was a waitress.

P: I make roughly four hundred thousand dollars a year.

M: I just made forty five million last year. Both our salaries have the number four in it. That means they’re close in amount.

P: …..

     I know, I know. That was a cheap shot. In my defence though, they deserve it. Does that amend what I said? I didn’t think so. The heart of this issue here is simply scrutinizing the salary of these models and attempting to find out if what they are being paid is justified in any way.

     In my humble and possibly biased opinion, the above example is a pretty clear indicator of how the people who actually contribute to a society are compensated much less (in terms of salary). Moreover, the individuals who do what requires the least amount of talent or skill are in turn rewarded with a plethora of money and incentives (on certain occasions). The prime example here is the model; the runway or clothing model in particular. According to Forbes list of the top models in 2010-2011, their top three models from the past year range in salary from forty five million to nine million. A common question is, or should be, how does a man who runs the United States of America, make far less than a model who does nothing more than toss on clothing they may never wear off the runway?

     One of the most common answers to this question is that they are indeed deserving of the money, as the fashion line would not sell the vast quantities of merchandise had it not been for that model and their physical appearance. Therefore, a model may make less if the line of fashion their endorsing and modelling for does not sell well. This may be acceptable, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is beautiful to some, is pure kitsch to others. The same view goes for the models dressed in their abnormal attire.

     Another example of the model vs. the real profession is the marriage between Patriots Quarter Back Tom Brady, and model Gisele Bündchen. How about we do a quick comparison of the two, in terms of professions. What does Brady need to be a QB in the NFL? Here's a list: leadership, athleticism, cognitive ability (especially on the field), mental/physical toughness, discipline, and constant hard work. What about Gisele? Here’s a list of what she needs as a model: a nice physical appearance to some people. That’s the end of the list. That’s the extent of it. Brady worked for his career and where he is today through blood, sweat, and tears. Gisele on the other hand, did literally nothing at all (aside from find a modelling agency at a young age). Granted, I have some outstanding quarrels about the salaries of professional athletes, but at least they make it clear that they work for what they’re getting.

     In this day and age, it appears that some the world is far more concerned with vanity. Well, that’s at least what’s portrayed in the twisted mind of the fashion industry. The engineers, physicists, doctors, and presidents must feel short changed when seeing the salary of these models. I feel it has gotten to the point where I should be telling young children: don’t try to go to university; try to be beautiful. But alas, I cannot do it. Despite the fact that professions utilizing the use of the brain make less money than some professions that require no brains, I will still continue to crusade for professions of substance and skill. These are the professions of talent and worth that society will always need. We need presidents to lead a nation. We need doctors to tend and heal the sick. We need physicists to explain and explore our world. We need engineers to construct the marvels of our society. In turn, we need models to make us feel good about what we do.