3 ms·

I'm with you but substitute WORK for Value Creation. It's way to easy to "create jobs" which are essentially busy-work with 0 to negative productivity. In the c

I'm with you but substitute WORK for Value Creation. It's way to easy to "create jobs" which are essentially busy-work with 0 to negative productivity. In the coming decades, economic productivity will become more and more important as gains from elsewhere start to taper out.

markus_zhang 6y ago
Agreed. Value Creation is a better word. Idea world is to have everyone getting rid off the necessary of repetitive work (of course he can still do it if he wants) and everyone is motivated to create value, in one way or another, and people generally don't say things like "Hey because I build rockets/control banks I should have a much more lucrative life than the rest of you guys". If we look at history, most of the stuffs that improve human civilization were indeed funded by "VC" of the time, but the core motive is not to earn profit, but to solve problems and satisfy personal interest. Now if you can remove VC from the picture, you pretty much get a society in which everyone is automatically doing things that are beneficial to the collective. Anyone who wants to just be super lazy will get bored easily and will start doing things sooner or later, especially when all of his friends are creating value. Sounds familiar somehow.
- ip26 6y ago
  Isn't "Value Creation" just another one of those buzzwords used to bamboozle investors? It's not that it doesn't exist, but it's so abstract & academic as to be impossible to measure.
burrows 6y ago
> It's way to easy to "create jobs" which are essentially busy-work with 0 to negative productivity. If firms have workers with negative productivity, aren't executives incentivized to fire them? And if so, why are there negative-productivity workers?
- Super_Jambo 6y ago
  Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to. There are also plenty of examples of work that is profitable to a company but that doesn't create value to consumers: * Campaign Donations / Lobbying for favourable regulations. * Softbank style monopoly creation (it's just moving investor money to consumers). * Patent Trolls and lots of semi-patent trolling games. (Think Amazon buying Kiva) * Misleading / Emotive advertising. (Which I'd argue is the majority of it.) If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive?
  - burrows 6y ago
    > Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to. Who is incentivized to hold executives responsible for the bottom line, board members and shareholders? > If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive? I agree, insomuch that many 'profitable ventures' don't increase the aggregate material wealth of the country.
- chillacy 6y ago
  I can think of a number of reasons: 1. The firm has enough growth to cover it up (downturns can finally bring about layoffs here) 2. Measurement is difficult or not practiced at certain firms vs others 3. Subsidies or contracts from the government specifically cancel out negative productivity and so make it worth it etc
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  Another word for negative productivity is overhead. Many administrative, HR and IT workers are overhead, but still needed.
  - ivalm 6y ago

markus_zhang 6y ago

Agreed. Value Creation is a better word. Idea world is to have everyone getting rid off the necessary of repetitive work (of course he can still do it if he wants) and everyone is motivated to create value, in one way or another, and people generally don't say things like "Hey because I build rockets/control banks I should have a much more lucrative life than the rest of you guys". If we look at history, most of the stuffs that improve human civilization were indeed funded by "VC" of the time, but the core motive is not to earn profit, but to solve problems and satisfy personal interest. Now if you can remove VC from the picture, you pretty much get a society in which everyone is automatically doing things that are beneficial to the collective. Anyone who wants to just be super lazy will get bored easily and will start doing things sooner or later, especially when all of his friends are creating value. Sounds familiar somehow.

ip26 6y ago
Isn't "Value Creation" just another one of those buzzwords used to bamboozle investors? It's not that it doesn't exist, but it's so abstract & academic as to be impossible to measure.

burrows 6y ago

> It's way to easy to "create jobs" which are essentially busy-work with 0 to negative productivity. If firms have workers with negative productivity, aren't executives incentivized to fire them? And if so, why are there negative-productivity workers?

Super_Jambo 6y ago
Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to. There are also plenty of examples of work that is profitable to a company but that doesn't create value to consumers: * Campaign Donations / Lobbying for favourable regulations. * Softbank style monopoly creation (it's just moving investor money to consumers). * Patent Trolls and lots of semi-patent trolling games. (Think Amazon buying Kiva) * Misleading / Emotive advertising. (Which I'd argue is the majority of it.) If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive?
- burrows 6y ago
  > Lots of executives aren't judged on their final contribution to the bottom line but the size of their 'empire' or project 'successes' they can point to. Who is incentivized to hold executives responsible for the bottom line, board members and shareholders? > If you're hell bent on thinking markets are inherently fair you can contort yourself to show these things _can_ be productive but to think they're always productive? I agree, insomuch that many 'profitable ventures' don't increase the aggregate material wealth of the country.
chillacy 6y ago
I can think of a number of reasons: 1. The firm has enough growth to cover it up (downturns can finally bring about layoffs here) 2. Measurement is difficult or not practiced at certain firms vs others 3. Subsidies or contracts from the government specifically cancel out negative productivity and so make it worth it etc
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Another word for negative productivity is overhead. Many administrative, HR and IT workers are overhead, but still needed.
- ivalm 6y ago