And being a lifeguard itself isn't even a dangerous job.
Not even the top 25 most dangerous according to this chart. And notice that all of these people make 1/4 to way less than these lifeguards...
https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-j...
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.
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.
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.
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.