5 ms·

I couldn't disagree more. There's a lot of jobs that add little to no value. In a fictional efficient market economy that conforms to neoclassical assumptions

I couldn't disagree more. There's a lot of jobs that add little to no value. In a fictional efficient market economy that conforms to neoclassical assumptions, sure, every job is value adding. But does anyone believe that that is the world we live in? It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true and definitely not universally true. Even if we just measured contribution in purely capitalist terms, e.g. shareholder value, I don't think your claim is true. I think there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net. It's likely that a lot of employees in such companies are also destroying shareholder value. And this is just shareholder value - to say nothing of the value destroyed for other stakeholders. Yes, it is possible to lead your life in such a way that even if you work very hard, you're still a net drain on humanity. Sorry, but we have to think much harder about how we can create a net positive contribution. We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute.

streblo 9y ago
> We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute. I think your argument is just as reductive as the parent comment. If we're going to come up with a definition of 'value' that actually helps people make good decisions about how to spend their time, then its too simplistic to say 'all jobs create some value', but it's also too simplistic to say 'the average job is destroying value'. I honestly think the reason most people don't try to do more good in the world is because it's just really hard and complicated to tell what's good/valuable and what's not.
peacetreefrog 9y ago
"It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true..." I can't imagine how it would NOT be true. Say you buy something from the store. Presumably you're getting more value from it than it costs, if you weren't, you wouldn't buy it. Same with a company. If an employee provides more value than their salary, it makes sense to hire them. Otherwise it doesn't. Sure it's not perfect and wages are sticky and people skate by etc, but you have to be pretty cynical to think most people aren't providing net value at their jobs. Maybe we have a different definition of "contributing to something." Also: "...there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net." Maybe I'm misunderstanding something or this is a typo, but how could this be true? Shareholder value isn't an abstract concept like love or blue, it's the number of shares in a co*their price. The SP 500 is not negative.
- matt4077 9y ago
  In a perfect, free, fair, well-informed market economy all economic activity happens because it helps someone. However: In that very same perfect system, the individual is also compensated for exactly 100% of the added value. If they then spend it on personal consumption, they capture all the value of their work for personal benefit. Society is improved by that exact amount only if you include that workers well-being in the calculation. Otherwise, it's exactly zero. But the effective altruist community has already come up with a perfectly valid yet somewhat disappointing answer: "earn to give", i. e. try to make as much money as possible, then spend as much of it as possible on others' wellbeing.
- Old_Thrashbarg 9y ago
  > I can't imagine how it would NOT be true. You can make money while damaging society. Some (possible) examples are employees working at: - a tobacco company - company that supplies oppressive regimes with tools (software and military hardware) to stay in power - company peddling some kind false medical treatment - tax lawyer helping people find loopholes - lobbyist working to increase regulatory capture in favor of their company > you have to be pretty cynical to think most people aren't providing net value at their jobs Yes, I agree. But note that you can provide net value to your company, but detract from society as a whole. Even so, I'd say the majority of people are adding value to society: plumbers, mechanics, pilots, engineers, most lawyers, some politicians, etc. But there is a spectrum of how much you contribute ranging from way in the negative to way in the positive. There's also jobs that contribute nothing, but don't really hurt. Day Traders come to mind, they do high-frequency money sloshing, but don't really change anything.
  - trevyn 9y ago
    I honestly think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the individual value of rank-and-file work to society as a whole. It is easy to build something and say "this helped family X, or this powered Y homes", but there are so many externalities that are simply hidden. What if family X is part of Nation Z, who is about to start thermonuclear war W? It's just a guessing game at that point. It seems that most people ignore it under the guise of "well, I do the good that I can", but it's false comfort, IMO.
specialist 9y ago
"There's a lot of jobs that add little to no value." Creating wealth vs transferring wealth. I've tried to choose jobs that have some value add, some win/win angle. Alas, it hasn't been that easy.

streblo 9y ago

> We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute. I think your argument is just as reductive as the parent comment. If we're going to come up with a definition of 'value' that actually helps people make good decisions about how to spend their time, then its too simplistic to say 'all jobs create some value', but it's also too simplistic to say 'the average job is destroying value'. I honestly think the reason most people don't try to do more good in the world is because it's just really hard and complicated to tell what's good/valuable and what's not.

peacetreefrog 9y ago

"It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true..." I can't imagine how it would NOT be true. Say you buy something from the store. Presumably you're getting more value from it than it costs, if you weren't, you wouldn't buy it. Same with a company. If an employee provides more value than their salary, it makes sense to hire them. Otherwise it doesn't. Sure it's not perfect and wages are sticky and people skate by etc, but you have to be pretty cynical to think most people aren't providing net value at their jobs. Maybe we have a different definition of "contributing to something." Also: "...there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net." Maybe I'm misunderstanding something or this is a typo, but how could this be true? Shareholder value isn't an abstract concept like love or blue, it's the number of shares in a co*their price. The SP 500 is not negative.

matt4077 9y ago
In a perfect, free, fair, well-informed market economy all economic activity happens because it helps someone. However: In that very same perfect system, the individual is also compensated for exactly 100% of the added value. If they then spend it on personal consumption, they capture all the value of their work for personal benefit. Society is improved by that exact amount only if you include that workers well-being in the calculation. Otherwise, it's exactly zero. But the effective altruist community has already come up with a perfectly valid yet somewhat disappointing answer: "earn to give", i. e. try to make as much money as possible, then spend as much of it as possible on others' wellbeing.
Old_Thrashbarg 9y ago
> I can't imagine how it would NOT be true. You can make money while damaging society. Some (possible) examples are employees working at: - a tobacco company - company that supplies oppressive regimes with tools (software and military hardware) to stay in power - company peddling some kind false medical treatment - tax lawyer helping people find loopholes - lobbyist working to increase regulatory capture in favor of their company > you have to be pretty cynical to think most people aren't providing net value at their jobs Yes, I agree. But note that you can provide net value to your company, but detract from society as a whole. Even so, I'd say the majority of people are adding value to society: plumbers, mechanics, pilots, engineers, most lawyers, some politicians, etc. But there is a spectrum of how much you contribute ranging from way in the negative to way in the positive. There's also jobs that contribute nothing, but don't really hurt. Day Traders come to mind, they do high-frequency money sloshing, but don't really change anything.
- trevyn 9y ago
  I honestly think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the individual value of rank-and-file work to society as a whole. It is easy to build something and say "this helped family X, or this powered Y homes", but there are so many externalities that are simply hidden. What if family X is part of Nation Z, who is about to start thermonuclear war W? It's just a guessing game at that point. It seems that most people ignore it under the guise of "well, I do the good that I can", but it's false comfort, IMO.

specialist 9y ago

"There's a lot of jobs that add little to no value." Creating wealth vs transferring wealth. I've tried to choose jobs that have some value add, some win/win angle. Alas, it hasn't been that easy.