4 ms·

I'm not finding highly relevant terms such as "government", "public sector", "bureaucrat", and "union" in the article. I don't see how this situation can be di

I'm not finding highly relevant terms such as "government", "public sector", "bureaucrat", and "union" in the article. I don't see how this situation can be discussed without considering the roles of government and unions. Both government and unions introduce significant distortions when it comes to people doing work. Most government "jobs" are a net loss to society as a whole. These government "jobs" typically involve decreasing the productivity of the private sector in some way, without providing any real (in the economic sense) value on their own. Thanks to these pointless government "jobs" and the burden they impose on society, the private sector gets stuck involuntarily creating more pointless "jobs" to try to deal with, or otherwise defend themselves from, the government "workers" and their interference. There's a multiplier effect going on, where one pointless government bureaucrat "job" can necessitate the creation of many other pointless private sector "jobs" just to deal with the pointless bureaucracy that that one bureaucrat creates. None of these "jobs" provide real value, and all are a burden on society because of how they destroy real wealth. Unions, especially public sector unions, just exacerbate the problem by interfering with the reduction of pointless government "jobs", and worse, by encouraging the creation of new pointless government "jobs" to increase their membership numbers. As government and public sector unions have gotten larger and more invasive over time, of course we should expect to see more and more people stuck doing jobs that are inherently valueless, or even outright harmful to society at large.

nullindividual 3y ago
Those government jobs are there to protect the vultures of capitalism from destroying the world around us or leaving us a subservient rubes to corporate overlords. Damned straight the government should be yanking the corporate choke chain -- HARD.
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  What you're describing there is typically the result of government-imposed regulations stifling free market competition, thus enabling the formation of monopolies (or oligopolies) that wouldn't naturally exist. It's another example of how pointless government "jobs" cause immense harm. Without the government interference that enables them, such monopolies/oligopolies simply wouldn't be able to survive, eliminating the problem you're worried about.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    I'm always shocked when I run across people who believe what you're parroting. I have to question if I'm dealing with a troll or not. Regulation was the chicken, not the egg.
    - VancouverMan 3y ago
      I have a couple of questions for you: What interaction(s) have you personally had with government? Do you personally depend on government for your income/existence (as your "job", via welfare, via tuition/scholarship, parent's/guardian's/partner's/supporter's "job(s)", etc.)?
  - ProxCoques 3y ago
    > Without the government interference that enables them, such monopolies/oligopolies simply wouldn't be able to survive If you think market concentration is a product of regulation, then I don't think the economic world, or indeed the concept of government itself, is going to make much sense to you.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Without governmental regulation, the "free market" inevitably devolves into monopoly.
    - lylejantzi3rd 3y ago
      You have that backwards. Governmental regulation increases the barriers to entry, which reduces competition and creates monopolies.
jjoonathan 3y ago
Economic Value begs the question "value for whom?" Value for the people with money. Capitalism isn't about doing what people want, it's about doing what rich people want. And what do rich people want? A few extra goods and services, yes, but mostly: to get paid for being rich. The purpose of capitalism is to ensure rich people get paid for being rich. Is it any wonder this creates a crisis of purpose for people who aren't rich?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Economic Value begs the question "value for whom?" Value for the people with money. Yes - e.g. Android phones comprise 80% of the market because people with money buy them... with that money. You can build a supercar for rich people, or fidget spinners for millions of kids. Either can reward you, as long as you do it well. > The purpose of capitalism is to ensure rich people get paid for being rich. The purpose of capitalism is to allocate resources efficiently, noting that the people doing the work and/or taking the risks can do this much better than a monarch or a bureaucrat.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    > Either [serving the king or the peasant] can reward you, as long as you do it well. Correct! But this is a function of the wealth distribution. If it's not too lopsided, chasing volume is a good strategy. In some markets, it still is, and that's great! However, the more lopsided the wealth distribution gets, the more it looks like a palace economy where a rational actor should ignore the masses and spend every waking breath figuring out how to get in the good graces of the nobility. > The purpose of capitalism is to allocate resources efficiently Efficiently according to whom? For what purpose? We circle right back to the definition of economic value and how it's wealth-weighted: if everyone has roughly equal wealth, they get weighted roughly equally in the efficiency calculation and the economic definition of efficiency roughly matches the colloquial definition. However, if Mt. Olympus has all the weight, "efficient" means "efficient at extracting tribute from the plebs." The wealth distribution is getting more and more lopsided every day. This has consequences.
avgcorrection 3y ago
Oh, I was just reminded of a pointless job: most think tank research. Those kinds of gigs where you are supposed to write a dozen pages long report where you reason back from a conclusion. Very popular in ideological areas like deregulation and private enterprise promotion.
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  That is another good example of how a relatively small number of pointless and unnecessary government "jobs" unfortunately result in even more pointless and wasteful private sector "jobs" existing. Those kinds of "jobs" and that kind of "work" only exist because of the existence of government-imposed regulation. If the government-imposed regulation simply didn't exist to begin with, nobody would waste resources writing pointless reports to try to manipulate such restrictions to their benefit.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    If people would only irrationally believe in how deregulation is good for them then those jobs wouldn't exist. Good point.

nullindividual 3y ago

Those government jobs are there to protect the vultures of capitalism from destroying the world around us or leaving us a subservient rubes to corporate overlords. Damned straight the government should be yanking the corporate choke chain -- HARD.

VancouverMan 3y ago
What you're describing there is typically the result of government-imposed regulations stifling free market competition, thus enabling the formation of monopolies (or oligopolies) that wouldn't naturally exist. It's another example of how pointless government "jobs" cause immense harm. Without the government interference that enables them, such monopolies/oligopolies simply wouldn't be able to survive, eliminating the problem you're worried about.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  I'm always shocked when I run across people who believe what you're parroting. I have to question if I'm dealing with a troll or not. Regulation was the chicken, not the egg.
  - VancouverMan 3y ago
    I have a couple of questions for you: What interaction(s) have you personally had with government? Do you personally depend on government for your income/existence (as your "job", via welfare, via tuition/scholarship, parent's/guardian's/partner's/supporter's "job(s)", etc.)?
- ProxCoques 3y ago
  > Without the government interference that enables them, such monopolies/oligopolies simply wouldn't be able to survive If you think market concentration is a product of regulation, then I don't think the economic world, or indeed the concept of government itself, is going to make much sense to you.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Without governmental regulation, the "free market" inevitably devolves into monopoly.
  - lylejantzi3rd 3y ago
    You have that backwards. Governmental regulation increases the barriers to entry, which reduces competition and creates monopolies.

jjoonathan 3y ago

Economic Value begs the question "value for whom?" Value for the people with money. Capitalism isn't about doing what people want, it's about doing what rich people want. And what do rich people want? A few extra goods and services, yes, but mostly: to get paid for being rich. The purpose of capitalism is to ensure rich people get paid for being rich. Is it any wonder this creates a crisis of purpose for people who aren't rich?

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Economic Value begs the question "value for whom?" Value for the people with money. Yes - e.g. Android phones comprise 80% of the market because people with money buy them... with that money. You can build a supercar for rich people, or fidget spinners for millions of kids. Either can reward you, as long as you do it well. > The purpose of capitalism is to ensure rich people get paid for being rich. The purpose of capitalism is to allocate resources efficiently, noting that the people doing the work and/or taking the risks can do this much better than a monarch or a bureaucrat.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  > Either [serving the king or the peasant] can reward you, as long as you do it well. Correct! But this is a function of the wealth distribution. If it's not too lopsided, chasing volume is a good strategy. In some markets, it still is, and that's great! However, the more lopsided the wealth distribution gets, the more it looks like a palace economy where a rational actor should ignore the masses and spend every waking breath figuring out how to get in the good graces of the nobility. > The purpose of capitalism is to allocate resources efficiently Efficiently according to whom? For what purpose? We circle right back to the definition of economic value and how it's wealth-weighted: if everyone has roughly equal wealth, they get weighted roughly equally in the efficiency calculation and the economic definition of efficiency roughly matches the colloquial definition. However, if Mt. Olympus has all the weight, "efficient" means "efficient at extracting tribute from the plebs." The wealth distribution is getting more and more lopsided every day. This has consequences.

avgcorrection 3y ago

Oh, I was just reminded of a pointless job: most think tank research. Those kinds of gigs where you are supposed to write a dozen pages long report where you reason back from a conclusion. Very popular in ideological areas like deregulation and private enterprise promotion.

VancouverMan 3y ago
That is another good example of how a relatively small number of pointless and unnecessary government "jobs" unfortunately result in even more pointless and wasteful private sector "jobs" existing. Those kinds of "jobs" and that kind of "work" only exist because of the existence of government-imposed regulation. If the government-imposed regulation simply didn't exist to begin with, nobody would waste resources writing pointless reports to try to manipulate such restrictions to their benefit.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  If people would only irrationally believe in how deregulation is good for them then those jobs wouldn't exist. Good point.