6 ms·

Ummm, no? What makes you think that is true?

by edanm 4y ago

mer_saulty 4y ago
What makes you think it isn’t?
- edanm 4y ago
  Well it depends on what you mean by "contributes to the world". For sure I don't think we can measure people's contributions only based on their work. But assuming that's what parent was talking about (since that's the only thing they mentioned) - the market is sometimes wrong, for sure, but not as a general rule. If someone is earning a lot of money, they are giving some value that is worth it to the company that is paying them. More money = more value. This doesn't always track with "contributions to society", because you can do things like e.g. stealing, which "gets you money" but doesn't contribute to society. But consultancies as a general rule aren't stealing, they aren't as a general rule doing unethical things, etc. They are, for the most part, helping businesses. And that help is worth real money. This isn't theoretical either - if a consultant helps a business be more efficient in some process, that means real money to the company, which means real-world additional wealth is generated, which is a good thing. The parent just made a quip because (I imagine) they think consultancies are a waste of money. And sometimes they are! But c'mon, I've known plenty of good, smart people working as consultants and I wouldn't want to jokingly quip that their job is meaningless. It's not worthy of a site like HN where we try to actually talk about things thoughtfully and critically.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    You skipped over the part where we consider if the concept of a business is a good thing for the world. In a capitalist society, these are basically competing entities seeking to maximise their own profits. This entails minimising expenses. That is, in capitalist society, businesses work to charge as much as possible, give back as little value as possible, and put as much pressure on their suppliers as possible to lower prices. The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation.
    - edanm 4y ago
      > The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation. I can make the theoretical argument all day, but really, we've lived in a world that has done this experiment for us. I look at capitalist countries, I look at communist countries, and I think it's pretty clear which ones are better to live in.
    - eouwt 4y ago
      > The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation. The majority of societies that have tried anything different were/are significantly worse for the average person. That seems like more than a little substantiation.
      - allmodelsRwrong 4y ago
        I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment but I think at this point it is good to take a step back and consider the magnitude of the statement you just made. Consider the extent of human societies that have existed, what it is that we know of them and through what lens we know of them. What do we mean by the words "significantly worse"? Where does this idea of "worse" stem from? And let's not forget the average person. How do we measure what's good for this average person? Sorry for the random remarks your comment caught my eye for some reason. The point here isn't for some bogus relativism but merely to state the obvious, that the human condition can be far more complicated than we give it credit.
    - ericmcer 4y ago
      What is the alternative to businesses. A centralized authority that dictates what is made and who gets to make it? All the reasons you say businesses suck are also the reasons why they work well. They need to react instantly to market pressures. If someone is making something no one wants they will crumble, if a new demand springs up businesses will instantly be created to meet it. I can't think of another system that is instantly responsive to a changing world and doesn't require much oversight.
sockaddr 4y ago
I believe it. The consultant may change more things in the world but I don’t see how that change is necessarily a “contribution”. More like an optimization for a small set of people. The line cook however is creating from raw something that literally nourishes.
- edanm 4y ago
  I think you're just falling on a lack of imagination. You can easily see what the line cook is producing, and it's much harder to see what the consultant is "producing" cause it's the stuff of thought and ideas, often. But that doesn't make it any less valuable - and often it's more valuable. The market certainly thinks it's more valuable and rewards it as such, which is a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution. Also, you say: > More like an optimization for a small set of people. As if that's a bad thing or a not-as-worth-it thing. But this is what a lot of software is. I personally work with schools, and one of the things I do is create tools to make teachers and school administrators more efficient and effective at their jobs. It's a fairly small subset of people that I'm helping, but I believe I make their lives a little bit better by providing them better tools that are time-saving. Is what I'm creating less valuable than a line-cook? I don't think so.
  - ThalesX 4y ago
    > The market certainly thinks it's more valuable and rewards it as such, which is a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution. I've often wondered why 'the market' doesn't understand that if garbage men disappeared, my city would look like a hellscape in a week. Or why my cousin whose team keeps an entire county electrified, makes shit pay compared to me. My conclusion was that 'the market' isn't a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution but as with all things human, there's also politics involved.
    - edanm 4y ago
      > I've often wondered why 'the market' doesn't understand that if garbage men disappeared, my city would look like a hellscape in a week. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the market. I didn't understand this either until I (self-) studied a bit of economics. The classic question in economics was this - why are diamonds more valuable than water? Without water you're dead. Without diamonds you're mostly no worse off. The answer to this led us eventually to the theory of supply and demand. Sure, without garbage workers, the city would be terrible. That's why we pay them. But the supply of garbage workers is apparently much larger than the supply of e.g. software engineers. If you have 100 people who can do one job, vs. person who can do the other job, that 1 person has a lot more leverage and you have to pay them more. Even if both jobs are equally important. That's how a market works. If your friend quit his team, he would presumably be easy to replace. If you quit your team, it would be harder. That is eventually reflected in your salaries. It's not perfect - since no one has perfect information, a lot of this stuff is based on guesswork and consensus. But you can very clearly see that the principles are correct. > My conclusion was that 'the market' isn't a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution but as with all things human, there's also politics involved. That's a fair conclusion, but I disagree with it. I think it's really true that one Einstein contributes more to the world (on average) than one garbage worker. One software engineer contributes more to the world (on average) than one garbage worker. And so on. It's mostly due to scale effects - one garbage worker can only do so much. One software engineer does a lot more because their work is easily duplicated and scaled and affects a lot more people.
paganel 4y ago
Yeah, I'd put at 100x at least, most probably the OP wanted to be generous to the McKinsey individuals.
watwut 4y ago
McKinsey consultants are making the worls worst. That one is easy.
jjj123 4y ago
Because some “exceptional” paths actually make the world worse. While some humble ones make the world better in some small way. The CEO of TurboTax makes the US worse by leading a company that lobbies to keep taxes complicated so they can remain an expensive middle man. A line cook is doing infinitely more good for the world.

Ummm, no? What makes you think that is true?

by edanm 4y ago

Ummm, no? What makes you think that is true?

mer_saulty 4y ago

What makes you think it isn’t?

edanm 4y ago
Well it depends on what you mean by "contributes to the world". For sure I don't think we can measure people's contributions only based on their work. But assuming that's what parent was talking about (since that's the only thing they mentioned) - the market is sometimes wrong, for sure, but not as a general rule. If someone is earning a lot of money, they are giving some value that is worth it to the company that is paying them. More money = more value. This doesn't always track with "contributions to society", because you can do things like e.g. stealing, which "gets you money" but doesn't contribute to society. But consultancies as a general rule aren't stealing, they aren't as a general rule doing unethical things, etc. They are, for the most part, helping businesses. And that help is worth real money. This isn't theoretical either - if a consultant helps a business be more efficient in some process, that means real money to the company, which means real-world additional wealth is generated, which is a good thing. The parent just made a quip because (I imagine) they think consultancies are a waste of money. And sometimes they are! But c'mon, I've known plenty of good, smart people working as consultants and I wouldn't want to jokingly quip that their job is meaningless. It's not worthy of a site like HN where we try to actually talk about things thoughtfully and critically.
- Beldin 4y ago
  You skipped over the part where we consider if the concept of a business is a good thing for the world. In a capitalist society, these are basically competing entities seeking to maximise their own profits. This entails minimising expenses. That is, in capitalist society, businesses work to charge as much as possible, give back as little value as possible, and put as much pressure on their suppliers as possible to lower prices. The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation.
  - edanm 4y ago
    > The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation. I can make the theoretical argument all day, but really, we've lived in a world that has done this experiment for us. I look at capitalist countries, I look at communist countries, and I think it's pretty clear which ones are better to live in.
  - eouwt 4y ago
    > The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation. The majority of societies that have tried anything different were/are significantly worse for the average person. That seems like more than a little substantiation.
    - allmodelsRwrong 4y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment but I think at this point it is good to take a step back and consider the magnitude of the statement you just made. Consider the extent of human societies that have existed, what it is that we know of them and through what lens we know of them. What do we mean by the words "significantly worse"? Where does this idea of "worse" stem from? And let's not forget the average person. How do we measure what's good for this average person? Sorry for the random remarks your comment caught my eye for some reason. The point here isn't for some bogus relativism but merely to state the obvious, that the human condition can be far more complicated than we give it credit.
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    What is the alternative to businesses. A centralized authority that dictates what is made and who gets to make it? All the reasons you say businesses suck are also the reasons why they work well. They need to react instantly to market pressures. If someone is making something no one wants they will crumble, if a new demand springs up businesses will instantly be created to meet it. I can't think of another system that is instantly responsive to a changing world and doesn't require much oversight.

sockaddr 4y ago

I believe it. The consultant may change more things in the world but I don’t see how that change is necessarily a “contribution”. More like an optimization for a small set of people. The line cook however is creating from raw something that literally nourishes.

edanm 4y ago
I think you're just falling on a lack of imagination. You can easily see what the line cook is producing, and it's much harder to see what the consultant is "producing" cause it's the stuff of thought and ideas, often. But that doesn't make it any less valuable - and often it's more valuable. The market certainly thinks it's more valuable and rewards it as such, which is a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution. Also, you say: > More like an optimization for a small set of people. As if that's a bad thing or a not-as-worth-it thing. But this is what a lot of software is. I personally work with schools, and one of the things I do is create tools to make teachers and school administrators more efficient and effective at their jobs. It's a fairly small subset of people that I'm helping, but I believe I make their lives a little bit better by providing them better tools that are time-saving. Is what I'm creating less valuable than a line-cook? I don't think so.
- ThalesX 4y ago
  > The market certainly thinks it's more valuable and rewards it as such, which is a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution. I've often wondered why 'the market' doesn't understand that if garbage men disappeared, my city would look like a hellscape in a week. Or why my cousin whose team keeps an entire county electrified, makes shit pay compared to me. My conclusion was that 'the market' isn't a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution but as with all things human, there's also politics involved.
  - edanm 4y ago
    > I've often wondered why 'the market' doesn't understand that if garbage men disappeared, my city would look like a hellscape in a week. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the market. I didn't understand this either until I (self-) studied a bit of economics. The classic question in economics was this - why are diamonds more valuable than water? Without water you're dead. Without diamonds you're mostly no worse off. The answer to this led us eventually to the theory of supply and demand. Sure, without garbage workers, the city would be terrible. That's why we pay them. But the supply of garbage workers is apparently much larger than the supply of e.g. software engineers. If you have 100 people who can do one job, vs. person who can do the other job, that 1 person has a lot more leverage and you have to pay them more. Even if both jobs are equally important. That's how a market works. If your friend quit his team, he would presumably be easy to replace. If you quit your team, it would be harder. That is eventually reflected in your salaries. It's not perfect - since no one has perfect information, a lot of this stuff is based on guesswork and consensus. But you can very clearly see that the principles are correct. > My conclusion was that 'the market' isn't a fairly good proxy for actually providing a contribution but as with all things human, there's also politics involved. That's a fair conclusion, but I disagree with it. I think it's really true that one Einstein contributes more to the world (on average) than one garbage worker. One software engineer contributes more to the world (on average) than one garbage worker. And so on. It's mostly due to scale effects - one garbage worker can only do so much. One software engineer does a lot more because their work is easily duplicated and scaled and affects a lot more people.

paganel 4y ago

Yeah, I'd put at 100x at least, most probably the OP wanted to be generous to the McKinsey individuals.

watwut 4y ago

McKinsey consultants are making the worls worst. That one is easy.

jjj123 4y ago

Because some “exceptional” paths actually make the world worse. While some humble ones make the world better in some small way. The CEO of TurboTax makes the US worse by leading a company that lobbies to keep taxes complicated so they can remain an expensive middle man. A line cook is doing infinitely more good for the world.