4 ms·

> there's no evidence that these activities produce economic value of a magnitude that justifies their compensation To be fair, that describes many, many jobs.

> there's no evidence that these activities produce economic value of a magnitude that justifies their compensation To be fair, that describes many, many jobs. Consider that a backup offensive lineman for your local NFL team probably makes more money than the General in charge of US forces in the Mideast.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
I think it's the wrong way to think about things. The evidence that they produce something of value is their compensation. If you don't agree with this, then the ball is in your court to show some evidence that in fact they do not produce economic value. The value could be hard to understand for a lay person, but that doesn't mean it's zero
- platz 11y ago
  > they produce something of value is their compensation Your argument 'I produce something of value to society' means 'I am fairly compensated' is a very odd one.
  - gjm11 11y ago
    I think you have misunderstood; what s/he said was "the evidence" that they produce something of value is their compensation". In other words: if what they were doing were useless, no one would pay them all that money to do it. I think this is wrong, though, at least when the question is value to society. Their compensation is very good evidence that they are doing something of value to someone, but that may be counterbalanced by negative consequences for other people. For instance, suppose I happen to be a very skilled thief, and some acquisitive billionaire pays me to steal great artworks from museums so that he can hang them in his living room. This is a very valuable service for the billionaire, because the museums probably wouldn't sell them to him at all, and if they did they'd be incredibly expensive; so paying me $1M for each theft is a big win for him. And he really, really loves art, and loves knowing that he owns precious things* even more, and he has money to burn, so getting those artworks is easily worth the $1M/item to him. In this scenario, I am providing plenty of value (as measured in dollars) to my employer, and my compensation reflects that. But am I doing something of value to society? Hell, no. Perhaps our hypothetical billionaire gets more satisfaction from looking at the Mona Lisa than most of those schlubs at the Louvre, but surely nowhere near enough more to make it better for it to hang in his house than in the museum.
    - gjm11 11y ago
      Oops, sorry about the b0rked italics. Unfortunately I didn't notice them until after it was too late to edit and fix.
- dvdcxn 11y ago
  > The evidence that they produce something of value is their compensation Isn't this the same argument car vendors use to justify why car sales shouldn't come straight from the manufacturer? Basically, a lot of people's careers are based on this and if you deprecate that business, they'll be out of luck. But that's the only reason, that too many people have become too reliant on a niche that shouldn't exist in the first place.

vasilipupkin 11y ago

I think it's the wrong way to think about things. The evidence that they produce something of value is their compensation. If you don't agree with this, then the ball is in your court to show some evidence that in fact they do not produce economic value. The value could be hard to understand for a lay person, but that doesn't mean it's zero

platz 11y ago
> they produce something of value is their compensation Your argument 'I produce something of value to society' means 'I am fairly compensated' is a very odd one.
- gjm11 11y ago
  I think you have misunderstood; what s/he said was "the evidence" that they produce something of value is their compensation". In other words: if what they were doing were useless, no one would pay them all that money to do it. I think this is wrong, though, at least when the question is value to society. Their compensation is very good evidence that they are doing something of value to someone, but that may be counterbalanced by negative consequences for other people. For instance, suppose I happen to be a very skilled thief, and some acquisitive billionaire pays me to steal great artworks from museums so that he can hang them in his living room. This is a very valuable service for the billionaire, because the museums probably wouldn't sell them to him at all, and if they did they'd be incredibly expensive; so paying me $1M for each theft is a big win for him. And he really, really loves art, and loves knowing that he owns precious things* even more, and he has money to burn, so getting those artworks is easily worth the $1M/item to him. In this scenario, I am providing plenty of value (as measured in dollars) to my employer, and my compensation reflects that. But am I doing something of value to society? Hell, no. Perhaps our hypothetical billionaire gets more satisfaction from looking at the Mona Lisa than most of those schlubs at the Louvre, but surely nowhere near enough more to make it better for it to hang in his house than in the museum.
  - gjm11 11y ago
    Oops, sorry about the b0rked italics. Unfortunately I didn't notice them until after it was too late to edit and fix.
dvdcxn 11y ago
> The evidence that they produce something of value is their compensation Isn't this the same argument car vendors use to justify why car sales shouldn't come straight from the manufacturer? Basically, a lot of people's careers are based on this and if you deprecate that business, they'll be out of luck. But that's the only reason, that too many people have become too reliant on a niche that shouldn't exist in the first place.