8 ms·

I wonder how much of this stagnation can be attributed to fewer people performing "real work"... that is producing something that actually adds value. Just thin

I wonder how much of this stagnation can be attributed to fewer people performing "real work"... that is producing something that actually adds value. Just thinking of the sheer number of people and resources used in advertising, movie CGI, useless chat apps, etc. that are basically a net negative to real economic output, it makes me think that maybe these people are the ones getting paid with the productivity gains of those who produce real output. Not trying to put anyone down here, it's just I can't see a lot of economic benefit in a team of 10 engineers modeling the hair of the next Assassin's Creed character... and where do you think this money comes from?

mfoy_ 9y ago
If by "real work" you mean force time distance, then suuuure. The entire software industry does very little "real work", since it doesn't take very much force to move the keys on a keyboard only a little bit down.
- trophycase 9y ago
  By real work I mean the process of actual wealth creation. I'm arguing that certain types of work are net positive wealth creation while others are net negative, meaning that more useful resources are consumed in the process of creating that good/service than the benefit to the system that this good/service provides. Take my Assassin's Creed example. Consider all the electricity used to run their computers, the food and shelter needed for engineers and marketers, the raw materials needed for game parts and distribution. These resources are essentially burned or are outflows of the system, while providing very little inflow (that is directly or indirectly contributing to the creation of real wealth). The result is a net outflow of real wealth of the system. As more and more people shift to such jobs, productivity gains in "net inflow" work will be partially distributed to those working in "net outflow" jobs. I'm also not arguing that all software jobs are net outflow. Something like Google for example, could be argued as a net inflow, because fast information retrieval and distribution can greatly improve the overall efficiencies of the economic system.
  - quacked 9y ago
    What's your working definition of 'real wealth'?
    - trophycase 9y ago
      A little hand-wavy but I will try to give some sort of definition. If we assume that wealth can be measured with a non-negative real number, then we will set the zero point of the scale at total human extinction. If we set such a zero point, then we will assume that moving away from zero, that is moving away from extinction, is moving in a positive direction. Therefore, anything which contributes to the robustness and stability of the system could be argued as "wealth" or "valuable".
      - stale2002 9y ago
        So you believe that the only thing that is valuable is increasing human survival? What about quality of life? I could make everyone survive better by locking them up in a room, safe from all outside hazards. Is that valuable?
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    > actual wealth creation Actual wealth creation is creating things that other people want to buy. This applies to games as much as it does to food.
    - mykull 9y ago
      Getting people to buy something doesn't always mean you provided them value. Some methods of making a buck are exploitative, like if they rely on deception, for example. There are scenarios where "middlemen" exist to take part of the wealth and not create any. Or where people are paid to be destructive for various reasons. A corrupt politician paid (in campaign donations, whatever) to pass a law to create a barrier to a market is being destructive, not constructive. It is a net loss overall.
socalnate1 9y ago
"Not trying to put anyone down here, it's just I can't see a lot of economic benefit in a team of 10 engineers modeling the hair of the next Assassin's Creed character... and where do you think this money comes from?" Errr - doesn't it come from the people buying the Assassin's Creed games? That particularly series earns hundreds of millions of dollars each game, and at least some of that value is created by the engineers modeling the character's hair.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Is that valuable? Sure it is work and effort and all that, but is it valuable? Would we be better off without movies and video games? There are many in the "bible belt" who will argue that we are (the Amish are the most famous but there are plenty of others).
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    If something creates zero value for many (most) people but some value to others, then yes, that is valuable. If I get a haircut, that's not valuable to at least 7 billion people worldwide, but it is valuable to me, so it is some positive value created. In a similar manner, if a million gamers like some game (or a satanic black metal song) and the whole of bible belt does not, well, that's a lot of positive value created anyway; assuming no actual negative externalities where someone else gets harmed by it. Individual value is subjective, but it can be aggregated - if you consider that playing a particular videogame has negative value and don't play it, then the impact is zero; if I consider that playing the same game has positive value to me and do it, then it adds a positive contribution to the global value created; I got something I liked, and that's valuable by itself, asssuming noone else got hurt by this.
- tpallarino 9y ago
  The money earned from Assassin's Creed isn't by creating value, it's given by others who are creating value. I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting so many people disagreeing with this idea.
  - 9y ago
sigstoat 9y ago
> ... movie CGI... why draw the line at the special effects? why not just assert that movies and entertainment are a "net negative"?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- trophycase 9y ago
  I wasn't drawing a line. You could argue that entertainment keeps people from going crazy and is a net positive to the efficiency of the system. Marvel CGI doesn't apply IMO
jeffreyrogers 9y ago
I don't understand why every post of yours in this thread it getting downvoted. I guess by downvoting you they can pretend that what you're saying isn't true. Agriculture and manufacturing are the drivers of economic growth. Without them there's no point in having all those other industries.
danbolt 9y ago
I’m really surprised you’re being downvoted, even though I’m not quite sure you think art doesn’t have value. The value I receive from seeing a movie with a friend or playing a video game usually exceeds the dollars I spent for the entertainment. I agree that making “things” that people “need” is a lot different though, and that’s reflected in their markets.

mfoy_ 9y ago

If by "real work" you mean force time distance, then suuuure. The entire software industry does very little "real work", since it doesn't take very much force to move the keys on a keyboard only a little bit down.

trophycase 9y ago
By real work I mean the process of actual wealth creation. I'm arguing that certain types of work are net positive wealth creation while others are net negative, meaning that more useful resources are consumed in the process of creating that good/service than the benefit to the system that this good/service provides. Take my Assassin's Creed example. Consider all the electricity used to run their computers, the food and shelter needed for engineers and marketers, the raw materials needed for game parts and distribution. These resources are essentially burned or are outflows of the system, while providing very little inflow (that is directly or indirectly contributing to the creation of real wealth). The result is a net outflow of real wealth of the system. As more and more people shift to such jobs, productivity gains in "net inflow" work will be partially distributed to those working in "net outflow" jobs. I'm also not arguing that all software jobs are net outflow. Something like Google for example, could be argued as a net inflow, because fast information retrieval and distribution can greatly improve the overall efficiencies of the economic system.
- quacked 9y ago
  What's your working definition of 'real wealth'?
  - trophycase 9y ago
    A little hand-wavy but I will try to give some sort of definition. If we assume that wealth can be measured with a non-negative real number, then we will set the zero point of the scale at total human extinction. If we set such a zero point, then we will assume that moving away from zero, that is moving away from extinction, is moving in a positive direction. Therefore, anything which contributes to the robustness and stability of the system could be argued as "wealth" or "valuable".
    - stale2002 9y ago
      So you believe that the only thing that is valuable is increasing human survival? What about quality of life? I could make everyone survive better by locking them up in a room, safe from all outside hazards. Is that valuable?
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  > actual wealth creation Actual wealth creation is creating things that other people want to buy. This applies to games as much as it does to food.
  - mykull 9y ago
    Getting people to buy something doesn't always mean you provided them value. Some methods of making a buck are exploitative, like if they rely on deception, for example. There are scenarios where "middlemen" exist to take part of the wealth and not create any. Or where people are paid to be destructive for various reasons. A corrupt politician paid (in campaign donations, whatever) to pass a law to create a barrier to a market is being destructive, not constructive. It is a net loss overall.

socalnate1 9y ago

"Not trying to put anyone down here, it's just I can't see a lot of economic benefit in a team of 10 engineers modeling the hair of the next Assassin's Creed character... and where do you think this money comes from?" Errr - doesn't it come from the people buying the Assassin's Creed games? That particularly series earns hundreds of millions of dollars each game, and at least some of that value is created by the engineers modeling the character's hair.

bluGill 9y ago
Is that valuable? Sure it is work and effort and all that, but is it valuable? Would we be better off without movies and video games? There are many in the "bible belt" who will argue that we are (the Amish are the most famous but there are plenty of others).
- PeterisP 9y ago
  If something creates zero value for many (most) people but some value to others, then yes, that is valuable. If I get a haircut, that's not valuable to at least 7 billion people worldwide, but it is valuable to me, so it is some positive value created. In a similar manner, if a million gamers like some game (or a satanic black metal song) and the whole of bible belt does not, well, that's a lot of positive value created anyway; assuming no actual negative externalities where someone else gets harmed by it. Individual value is subjective, but it can be aggregated - if you consider that playing a particular videogame has negative value and don't play it, then the impact is zero; if I consider that playing the same game has positive value to me and do it, then it adds a positive contribution to the global value created; I got something I liked, and that's valuable by itself, asssuming noone else got hurt by this.
tpallarino 9y ago
The money earned from Assassin's Creed isn't by creating value, it's given by others who are creating value. I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting so many people disagreeing with this idea.
- 9y ago

sigstoat 9y ago

> ... movie CGI... why draw the line at the special effects? why not just assert that movies and entertainment are a "net negative"?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
trophycase 9y ago
I wasn't drawing a line. You could argue that entertainment keeps people from going crazy and is a net positive to the efficiency of the system. Marvel CGI doesn't apply IMO

jeffreyrogers 9y ago

I don't understand why every post of yours in this thread it getting downvoted. I guess by downvoting you they can pretend that what you're saying isn't true. Agriculture and manufacturing are the drivers of economic growth. Without them there's no point in having all those other industries.

danbolt 9y ago

I’m really surprised you’re being downvoted, even though I’m not quite sure you think art doesn’t have value. The value I receive from seeing a movie with a friend or playing a video game usually exceeds the dollars I spent for the entertainment. I agree that making “things” that people “need” is a lot different though, and that’s reflected in their markets.