3 ms·

"That's a big chunk of labor that could be used for something, and we're not using it," said Greg Kaplan, an economist at the University of Chicago who was not

"That's a big chunk of labor that could be used for something, and we're not using it," said Greg Kaplan, an economist at the University of Chicago who was not involved with the new research. I'm also an economist and this guy is not smart. Others will rush in the fill the void. Marginally there will be almost no difference. This guy is forgetting that directly below this group of men who now play video games is a nearly equal capable group who now has better job opportunities. This logic continues to ratchet all the way down.... This isn't rocket science. Only if there was never a poorer group could this be true

ProxCoques 10y ago
I think he's referring to "cognitive surplus", not opportunity cost as you seem to imply. So for example, if these guys were paid to play games which solved problems for other people, or were given jobs that used similar skills they have been cultivating while playing these games. Think perhaps a form of Mechanical Turk or SETI@home.
csallen 10y ago
I don't see how your statement contradicts his. The fact that other people will rush in to fill the void doesn't change the fact that tons of people will still be sitting at home playing video games. Hence his statement about a big chunk of labor remaining unused is still true. Also, there's absolutely no guarantee that job opportunities will become more attractive at a rate that matches the attractiveness of video games. It's not hard to imagine a world 20 years from now in which millions of people spend 12+ hours a day in what essentially amounts to the Matrix, slaying dragons, shooting bad guys, and saving princesses. You might say to them, "Go out and get a job! There's no competition! You could make great money!" To which they could very logically reply, "Why would I need lots of money for? I'm perfectly happy right now."
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Ready Player One comes to mind.
- Teever 10y ago
  But are they really a chunk of labour? Like if people that chose to not work and play video games are a chunk of unused labour than so are unemployed alcoholics. It's kind of a self-selecting thing, do you really want the people that don't want to work?
  - csallen 10y ago
    If the economists in the article are to be believed, these aren't simply "people that don't want to work." They're people who ordinary have always worked, but are now being actively persuaded not to by this new force known as video games. So it's not analogous to alcoholics being alcoholics. It's better compared to the introduction of a wholly new drug into society, which has subsequently altered the behavior of a heretofore normal, hard-working, non-addicted segment. Secondly, while it may seem appropriate to deride these people as useless and lazy ne'er-do-wells, that characterization isn't apt. It's not as if they're living lives of misery, unable to overcome some base desire to pull themselves out of it. Quite the contrary: they're happier than the rest of us. They're looking at the options that society has presented them with, and making a perfectly logical choice to spend their days engaged in meaningful, rewarding, social, challenging, and fulfilling activity -- in a fantasy world. Why would they go to work at dead end jobs if they have the option not to?
KODeKarnage 10y ago
Oh you're an economist, huh? And Greg Kaplan isn't smart? Doubt it. No matter if the "void" is filled with other people, there will always be a big chunk of labour that could be used for something NOT being utilised.

ProxCoques 10y ago

I think he's referring to "cognitive surplus", not opportunity cost as you seem to imply. So for example, if these guys were paid to play games which solved problems for other people, or were given jobs that used similar skills they have been cultivating while playing these games. Think perhaps a form of Mechanical Turk or SETI@home.

csallen 10y ago

I don't see how your statement contradicts his. The fact that other people will rush in to fill the void doesn't change the fact that tons of people will still be sitting at home playing video games. Hence his statement about a big chunk of labor remaining unused is still true. Also, there's absolutely no guarantee that job opportunities will become more attractive at a rate that matches the attractiveness of video games. It's not hard to imagine a world 20 years from now in which millions of people spend 12+ hours a day in what essentially amounts to the Matrix, slaying dragons, shooting bad guys, and saving princesses. You might say to them, "Go out and get a job! There's no competition! You could make great money!" To which they could very logically reply, "Why would I need lots of money for? I'm perfectly happy right now."

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Ready Player One comes to mind.
Teever 10y ago
But are they really a chunk of labour? Like if people that chose to not work and play video games are a chunk of unused labour than so are unemployed alcoholics. It's kind of a self-selecting thing, do you really want the people that don't want to work?
- csallen 10y ago
  If the economists in the article are to be believed, these aren't simply "people that don't want to work." They're people who ordinary have always worked, but are now being actively persuaded not to by this new force known as video games. So it's not analogous to alcoholics being alcoholics. It's better compared to the introduction of a wholly new drug into society, which has subsequently altered the behavior of a heretofore normal, hard-working, non-addicted segment. Secondly, while it may seem appropriate to deride these people as useless and lazy ne'er-do-wells, that characterization isn't apt. It's not as if they're living lives of misery, unable to overcome some base desire to pull themselves out of it. Quite the contrary: they're happier than the rest of us. They're looking at the options that society has presented them with, and making a perfectly logical choice to spend their days engaged in meaningful, rewarding, social, challenging, and fulfilling activity -- in a fantasy world. Why would they go to work at dead end jobs if they have the option not to?

KODeKarnage 10y ago

Oh you're an economist, huh? And Greg Kaplan isn't smart? Doubt it. No matter if the "void" is filled with other people, there will always be a big chunk of labour that could be used for something NOT being utilised.