4 ms·

Is a zero-sum job defined as one where the only person benefitting is the employee? If so, it seems like the only ethical way to eliminate those jobs from the

Is a zero-sum job defined as one where the only person benefitting is the employee? If so, it seems like the only ethical way to eliminate those jobs from the economy would be some kind of guaranteed minimum income.

pydry 5y ago
One of the examples of the distinction was a guy who worked at a post production company that: A) Made cool explosions and aliens for movies, etc. which he loved and thought counted as socially useful coz audiences did too. B) Made hair shinier and teeth whiter and other visual trickery to give false impressions of branded products. These things served only to take market share from other similar companies that made products that weren't markedly different to theirs. B made up the majority of what he did, hence "mainly bullshit". Graeber's claim is that this class of job (dubbed "goons"), according to those ppolled/interviewed only exist because other people employ them too. I.e. if there were an armistice on toothpaste ads that showed white teeth nothing would really change for consumers but if one company stopped the mindshare arms race they would lose market share.
- bashinator 5y ago
  I see - that’s philosophically, but maybe not economically different from what I was thinking of - “make-work” jobs, or jobs that could easily be replaced by automation. Edit to add: one major difference might be in the level of skill or education the employee has/needs.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Who else discuss these topics? I'm deeply interested in this.
- planet-and-halo 5y ago
  You see this argument in discussions of the finance industry a lot. What percentage of financial trading is useful allocation of capital, and how much is just shifting ownership of the things other people make?
  - pydry 5y ago
    Yep - this was also the theme of the movie Margin Call (a point rammed home by the final scene). It's usually really hard to draw the line in finance, though - unless you're deep in the weeds. This is partly why Graeber's attempt to look at this issue through the lens of people doing the jobs themselves was probably the best way to formulate the research.
    - simonh 5y ago
      It's just a shame he used such blatantly loaded questions, which hopelessly biased his conclusions, as demonstrated by the new research. But even then I'm not sure this is true. Surely the best people to evaluate the value of a worker are the people paying for their services?
      - gryn 5y ago
        you can have positive value for the one paying while having a net negative value for the one paying the one paying you or society at large.
        simonh 5y ago
        Do you though, I’m reality? I don’t think that has been demonstrated at all, not at a significant level anyway.
        planet-and-halo 5y ago
        Here's an extreme example to make the point: we pay soldiers to kill people and destroy property. At the level of our "business" (our country) this may increase "value" (our security), while at the level of "society" (the world) it may be a net loss and an enormous tragedy. The problem is that this whole idea of "the good of society/the world" is extremely fuzzy and not that useful. It presupposes the only worthwhile actions are those that increase the utility function of the entire world, which we undoubtedly lack the knowledge to do. Capitalism is just a best-try approximation at achieving that and seems to have more success than other systems we've tried.
- simonh 5y ago
  I suspect this is based on Marx's analysis of the creation of value. That is, for Marx only primary production creates value, all other economic or human activity destroys value. So for example in Marxism making a clock creates value, but transporting that clock from the factory to a shop, giving it shelf space, advertising it and selling it to a customer all destroy value. They are additional services that increase the cost of the product, and Marx actually used the term parasitic for these activities and argued they should all be minimised or preferably eliminated. This resulted in Marxists creating uniform, identikit societies with standardised products directly distributed wherever possible. No advertising, no consumer choice because the process of accumulating the information necessary, and selecting products on an individual basis instead of collectively is wasteful. The result was actual productivity in the real economy collapsed because it turns out some of these parasitic activities are kind of important. They ruthlessly stripped out all the bullshit and produced stale, drab societies of bored hungry drones. Thanks guys. Who actually needs plays, books of fiction, music, nice clothes, holidays to pretty places? Who needs nice haircuts, polished nails, stylish cars, waited service? All of that is bullshit we don't need. The only slight problem is it eliminates everything that actually makes life worth living. It eliminates all forms of aesthetic and cultural value, recognising only productive economic value, devoted to the activity of production itself. It suborns human value to material value.
  - gryn 5y ago
    that's not was is being said here though. you can have your advertising and everything else you want, but if the bread and butter of your advertising strategy is over-exploiting dark patterns and others shady mechanism while keeping the products the same, are you creating value (for the consumer)? I don't think they have any problem with the original theory of advertising, which is informing the potential consumer of your product, about its existence, its usefulness and the advantages it has over the competition. a more coherence basis of what is said in the book is simply that a a non negligible part of today economy is about wealth extraction but disguised as wealth creation, and the people that are tasked to do that can tell.
    - simonh 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

One of the examples of the distinction was a guy who worked at a post production company that: A) Made cool explosions and aliens for movies, etc. which he loved and thought counted as socially useful coz audiences did too. B) Made hair shinier and teeth whiter and other visual trickery to give false impressions of branded products. These things served only to take market share from other similar companies that made products that weren't markedly different to theirs. B made up the majority of what he did, hence "mainly bullshit". Graeber's claim is that this class of job (dubbed "goons"), according to those ppolled/interviewed only exist because other people employ them too. I.e. if there were an armistice on toothpaste ads that showed white teeth nothing would really change for consumers but if one company stopped the mindshare arms race they would lose market share.

bashinator 5y ago
I see - that’s philosophically, but maybe not economically different from what I was thinking of - “make-work” jobs, or jobs that could easily be replaced by automation. Edit to add: one major difference might be in the level of skill or education the employee has/needs.
agumonkey 5y ago
Who else discuss these topics? I'm deeply interested in this.
planet-and-halo 5y ago
You see this argument in discussions of the finance industry a lot. What percentage of financial trading is useful allocation of capital, and how much is just shifting ownership of the things other people make?
- pydry 5y ago
  Yep - this was also the theme of the movie Margin Call (a point rammed home by the final scene). It's usually really hard to draw the line in finance, though - unless you're deep in the weeds. This is partly why Graeber's attempt to look at this issue through the lens of people doing the jobs themselves was probably the best way to formulate the research.
  - simonh 5y ago
    It's just a shame he used such blatantly loaded questions, which hopelessly biased his conclusions, as demonstrated by the new research. But even then I'm not sure this is true. Surely the best people to evaluate the value of a worker are the people paying for their services?
    - gryn 5y ago
      you can have positive value for the one paying while having a net negative value for the one paying the one paying you or society at large.
      - simonh 5y ago
        Do you though, I’m reality? I don’t think that has been demonstrated at all, not at a significant level anyway.
        planet-and-halo 5y ago
        Here's an extreme example to make the point: we pay soldiers to kill people and destroy property. At the level of our "business" (our country) this may increase "value" (our security), while at the level of "society" (the world) it may be a net loss and an enormous tragedy. The problem is that this whole idea of "the good of society/the world" is extremely fuzzy and not that useful. It presupposes the only worthwhile actions are those that increase the utility function of the entire world, which we undoubtedly lack the knowledge to do. Capitalism is just a best-try approximation at achieving that and seems to have more success than other systems we've tried.
simonh 5y ago
I suspect this is based on Marx's analysis of the creation of value. That is, for Marx only primary production creates value, all other economic or human activity destroys value. So for example in Marxism making a clock creates value, but transporting that clock from the factory to a shop, giving it shelf space, advertising it and selling it to a customer all destroy value. They are additional services that increase the cost of the product, and Marx actually used the term parasitic for these activities and argued they should all be minimised or preferably eliminated. This resulted in Marxists creating uniform, identikit societies with standardised products directly distributed wherever possible. No advertising, no consumer choice because the process of accumulating the information necessary, and selecting products on an individual basis instead of collectively is wasteful. The result was actual productivity in the real economy collapsed because it turns out some of these parasitic activities are kind of important. They ruthlessly stripped out all the bullshit and produced stale, drab societies of bored hungry drones. Thanks guys. Who actually needs plays, books of fiction, music, nice clothes, holidays to pretty places? Who needs nice haircuts, polished nails, stylish cars, waited service? All of that is bullshit we don't need. The only slight problem is it eliminates everything that actually makes life worth living. It eliminates all forms of aesthetic and cultural value, recognising only productive economic value, devoted to the activity of production itself. It suborns human value to material value.
- gryn 5y ago
  that's not was is being said here though. you can have your advertising and everything else you want, but if the bread and butter of your advertising strategy is over-exploiting dark patterns and others shady mechanism while keeping the products the same, are you creating value (for the consumer)? I don't think they have any problem with the original theory of advertising, which is informing the potential consumer of your product, about its existence, its usefulness and the advantages it has over the competition. a more coherence basis of what is said in the book is simply that a a non negligible part of today economy is about wealth extraction but disguised as wealth creation, and the people that are tasked to do that can tell.
  - simonh 5y ago