5 ms·

> Why? Because people have stopped doing things > We've built an entire economy around people doing things they don't really need to do. Even hunter-gatherers

> Why? Because people have stopped doing things > We've built an entire economy around people doing things they don't really need to do. Even hunter-gatherers spend a great deal of hard-earned resources on things "they don't need to do," such as art, music, parties, luxury foods and jewelry, and so on. This is human nature. It has nothing to do with how the economy is structured. The stuff we're not doing that "we don't need to do" is not economically redundant make-work symptomatic of an inefficient economy. It's symptomatic of us being a species that prefers nicer digs to "a cave with access to rice and beans." In any economy, activity shuts down if individuals fear an active plague. Human nature also entails people being scared of choking to death on their own lungs. The last paragraph here is trying to sound profound but it's really just catastrophically stupid. There's really no such thing as an economy that has the "spare capacity" to offset 25% of the workforce being furloughed. There are political economies that can adequately respond to this shock - perhaps with a large Keynesian stimulus - but that's very different from having an economy that's somehow structurally immune to the impact of widespread inactivity. Unless its author means "give people free money until the crisis passes", the comment you're approvingly citing badly misunderstands what an economy actually is.

uoaei 6y ago
I think you missed the point. If I understood GP correctly, the "things they don't really need to do" are the modern-day pencil pushers and middlemen who exist in industries that are basically modernized rent-seeking. Health insurance is an obvious example but we can also take it to the extreme and point out that there are sometimes (not often) 3 people at some grocery checkout counters: the cashier, the bagger, and the person who takes the bags and puts them in the basket. The latter two aren't really necessary, but we gave them jobs because it looks good when you report the quarterly unemployment stats. Think about who would be the first to be let go in the case of any economic disruption that impacted that grocery store.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  Although I agree with the rent-seeker problem I really don’t think that’s what he was saying - for starters, the pencil pushers are much more likely to be at work (from home) than the food/entertainment/etc people I mentioned, and much more likely to keep their jobs during the pandemic. If your argument is what OP meant then I was giving them too much credit. > The latter two aren't really necessary, but we gave them jobs because it looks good when you report the quarterly unemployment stats. I don’t even know where to start with this. Clearly you have never worked in a grocery store. Beyond that - why would private businesses agree to hire unnecessary workers to juke unemployment stats? This entire argument makes zero sense. It seems like you have some strong views about the economy but they are disconnected from the facts.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Have you ever been in a grocery store outside the US? Am I really the one disconnected? The grocery stores obviously don't care about unemployment stats, but federal government incentivizing "job creation" without getting into specifics about the utility, necessity, etc. of those jobs is a real problem. Everyone who drives for Uber has a "job" but that is hardly anything to survive on.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    I see it as a bit of both. I don't see myself going to a movie theater anytime soon even if they are allowed to open. Our restaurant spending is 1/3 what it used to be. A tank of gas lasts almost a month rather than a week. I used to go grocery shopping every week with at least one additional trip to grab one thing I needed. Now I go every 2 weeks and don't make a special trip unless we absolutely can't make anything without that missing ingredient. All kinds of jobs are at risk in this type of environment. Service will be hit hardest but there are ripple effects that will impact pretty much everyone to some degree.
  - ikeyany 6y ago
    I was referring to the notion of "bullshit jobs", optimizing for leanness, and neglecting societal safety nets.
- nopzor 6y ago
  your example is really not appropriate. a grocery store (big or small) will not hire additional checkout staff "because it looks good when you report the quarterly unemployment stats". private businesses really couldn't care less about those stats. they will hire the minimum number of people necessary to perform their service, at the minimum cost that they can.

uoaei 6y ago

I think you missed the point. If I understood GP correctly, the "things they don't really need to do" are the modern-day pencil pushers and middlemen who exist in industries that are basically modernized rent-seeking. Health insurance is an obvious example but we can also take it to the extreme and point out that there are sometimes (not often) 3 people at some grocery checkout counters: the cashier, the bagger, and the person who takes the bags and puts them in the basket. The latter two aren't really necessary, but we gave them jobs because it looks good when you report the quarterly unemployment stats. Think about who would be the first to be let go in the case of any economic disruption that impacted that grocery store.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
Although I agree with the rent-seeker problem I really don’t think that’s what he was saying - for starters, the pencil pushers are much more likely to be at work (from home) than the food/entertainment/etc people I mentioned, and much more likely to keep their jobs during the pandemic. If your argument is what OP meant then I was giving them too much credit. > The latter two aren't really necessary, but we gave them jobs because it looks good when you report the quarterly unemployment stats. I don’t even know where to start with this. Clearly you have never worked in a grocery store. Beyond that - why would private businesses agree to hire unnecessary workers to juke unemployment stats? This entire argument makes zero sense. It seems like you have some strong views about the economy but they are disconnected from the facts.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Have you ever been in a grocery store outside the US? Am I really the one disconnected? The grocery stores obviously don't care about unemployment stats, but federal government incentivizing "job creation" without getting into specifics about the utility, necessity, etc. of those jobs is a real problem. Everyone who drives for Uber has a "job" but that is hardly anything to survive on.
- brewdad 6y ago
  I see it as a bit of both. I don't see myself going to a movie theater anytime soon even if they are allowed to open. Our restaurant spending is 1/3 what it used to be. A tank of gas lasts almost a month rather than a week. I used to go grocery shopping every week with at least one additional trip to grab one thing I needed. Now I go every 2 weeks and don't make a special trip unless we absolutely can't make anything without that missing ingredient. All kinds of jobs are at risk in this type of environment. Service will be hit hardest but there are ripple effects that will impact pretty much everyone to some degree.
- ikeyany 6y ago
  I was referring to the notion of "bullshit jobs", optimizing for leanness, and neglecting societal safety nets.
nopzor 6y ago
your example is really not appropriate. a grocery store (big or small) will not hire additional checkout staff "because it looks good when you report the quarterly unemployment stats". private businesses really couldn't care less about those stats. they will hire the minimum number of people necessary to perform their service, at the minimum cost that they can.