4 ms·

We're already well on our way to getting nowhere with this. > Not-so-obviously, if I had qualms about my job I wouldn't be doing it. Some people are for sale,

We're already well on our way to getting nowhere with this. > Not-so-obviously, if I had qualms about my job I wouldn't be doing it. Some people are for sale, I'm not. So participating in the financial industry driving the Western world's economy off a cliff is fine, but having to work with .NET is where you draw the line? > I know these sites. They're rather juvenile These sites discuss (the economic) Reality, and what's going on in it. Trying to discredit them is logical, of course, for someone working for the financial industry. Here's someone with a more somber take on things, in case it helps: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - he's on the same page with the aforementioned two, though. > There is nothing bad about making money from financial services. No? Well, what good is there about it? How does it benefit the real economy, where people use their time and skills to produce something of value, which they then exchange for goods and services as necessary? What is it that grounds the financial industry into the real economy? In other words, in what ways is it not about making money with money? > If you stretch it a bit, you can call it "making money with money" the same as you can argue that the sole reason for any imaginable job is making money. It's not. Huh? A job is an arrangement where an employer pays someone a salary in exchange for using his time/skills in a way that benefits the employer (in a monetary sense, ultimately). For both parties involved, it is about making money. Otherwise we're talking about some kind of charitable operation.

muyuu 14y ago
I consider my job not only not to be bad, but GOOD for society. My job helps making a level field and removes the need of extra people working in trying to scalp away from market fluctuations. I consider my job to be good in the sense that the alternative to be worse. Quite like a free market I consider it to be good, because it's the MUCH better alternative to a CAPTIVE market. Because that's in fact the only alternative. Some manipulative politicians trying to justify their job would tell you the alternative is a "regulated market" - it honestly is not about more or less regulation, it's about better or worse regulation. The freest market is not the least nor the most regulated, it's the best regulated. > These sites discuss (the economic) Reality, and what's going on in it. Trying to discredit them is logical, of course, for someone working for the financial industry. You've very conveniently cherry-picked my criticism about them. I like these sites and they're rather good. However, their style is indeed juvenile. That's the way they're redacted, the public they cater to the most and very likely the personality of the main contributors. They also seem to be quite libertarian-leaning. Like myself. Which is totally besides the point, anyway. > For both parties involved, it is about making money. Otherwise we're talking about some kind of charitable operation. But you're missing the point that it's not ONLY about that. Thankfully, most of us don't work just for mere subsistence and are in the position to choose one work over another based in more than pay. This point is related to the post because I'd actually take this job over most other jobs taking a significant pay cut. I've worked in telecom, microchip design, even videogames, and this is my favourite job so far. I'd take it over any of my previous jobs on equal pay and they weren't bad jobs for the most part. I'd even take a pay cut. That's how much I like my job and how positive for society I think it is. My sister is a doctor, I think my job is more positive for society than even that, it affects way more people.
- btilly 14y ago
  Funny fact. A lot of people in finance seems to believe that they are making things more efficient and removing people. And yet the finance industry as a whole continues to grow rapidly relative to the rest of the economy. Also their share of profits relative to companies in the "real" economy is at historic highs. I submit that you're doing the exact opposite of what you think you are. When you make financial manipulation require fewer highly paid people, you increase profit margins. The primary effect of this is to increase the volume of such activity.
  - gaius 14y ago
    Same is true of the software industry, y'know.
    - btilly 14y ago
      Oh, absolutely. However what the software industry enables more of is often stuff that I think is good. For instance I have 2 contracts right now. One will help people find a college program that they want, and the other will help people find a job that they want. These are causes whose value proposition is pretty clear to me. I don't need to justify my work on the basis of, "I'm getting rid of people who do what I do." Rather I can say, "I'm helping good things happen for people." Thus I don't see a problem in the fact that my successes create more demand for people like me.
      - muyuu 14y ago
        I'm doing quite tangible stuff myself as well. On the one hand, I'm helping people preserving their pension funds by detecting risky situations early. These people don't want highly speculative markets or high profits, they don't want their savings protected from the money printing machine among other things. I'm also helping decide producers what should they be doing next, to meet demand and so people don't suffer shortages. I don't work for a bucket shop or a commodity hoarding fund. I help supply meet demand and more people have their needs met and better met than otherwise thanks to people like me. There would be a lot more poverty in the world without this industry. In fact, there was a lot more poverty in the world as a direct result of the lack of this level of commerce in the past. It's not our duty to stop the poorest regions of the world from over-breeding, though, which is the main reason for poverty nowadays (including pockets of poverty in wealthy nations).

muyuu 14y ago

I consider my job not only not to be bad, but GOOD for society. My job helps making a level field and removes the need of extra people working in trying to scalp away from market fluctuations. I consider my job to be good in the sense that the alternative to be worse. Quite like a free market I consider it to be good, because it's the MUCH better alternative to a CAPTIVE market. Because that's in fact the only alternative. Some manipulative politicians trying to justify their job would tell you the alternative is a "regulated market" - it honestly is not about more or less regulation, it's about better or worse regulation. The freest market is not the least nor the most regulated, it's the best regulated. > These sites discuss (the economic) Reality, and what's going on in it. Trying to discredit them is logical, of course, for someone working for the financial industry. You've very conveniently cherry-picked my criticism about them. I like these sites and they're rather good. However, their style is indeed juvenile. That's the way they're redacted, the public they cater to the most and very likely the personality of the main contributors. They also seem to be quite libertarian-leaning. Like myself. Which is totally besides the point, anyway. > For both parties involved, it is about making money. Otherwise we're talking about some kind of charitable operation. But you're missing the point that it's not ONLY about that. Thankfully, most of us don't work just for mere subsistence and are in the position to choose one work over another based in more than pay. This point is related to the post because I'd actually take this job over most other jobs taking a significant pay cut. I've worked in telecom, microchip design, even videogames, and this is my favourite job so far. I'd take it over any of my previous jobs on equal pay and they weren't bad jobs for the most part. I'd even take a pay cut. That's how much I like my job and how positive for society I think it is. My sister is a doctor, I think my job is more positive for society than even that, it affects way more people.

btilly 14y ago
Funny fact. A lot of people in finance seems to believe that they are making things more efficient and removing people. And yet the finance industry as a whole continues to grow rapidly relative to the rest of the economy. Also their share of profits relative to companies in the "real" economy is at historic highs. I submit that you're doing the exact opposite of what you think you are. When you make financial manipulation require fewer highly paid people, you increase profit margins. The primary effect of this is to increase the volume of such activity.
- gaius 14y ago
  Same is true of the software industry, y'know.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Oh, absolutely. However what the software industry enables more of is often stuff that I think is good. For instance I have 2 contracts right now. One will help people find a college program that they want, and the other will help people find a job that they want. These are causes whose value proposition is pretty clear to me. I don't need to justify my work on the basis of, "I'm getting rid of people who do what I do." Rather I can say, "I'm helping good things happen for people." Thus I don't see a problem in the fact that my successes create more demand for people like me.
    - muyuu 14y ago
      I'm doing quite tangible stuff myself as well. On the one hand, I'm helping people preserving their pension funds by detecting risky situations early. These people don't want highly speculative markets or high profits, they don't want their savings protected from the money printing machine among other things. I'm also helping decide producers what should they be doing next, to meet demand and so people don't suffer shortages. I don't work for a bucket shop or a commodity hoarding fund. I help supply meet demand and more people have their needs met and better met than otherwise thanks to people like me. There would be a lot more poverty in the world without this industry. In fact, there was a lot more poverty in the world as a direct result of the lack of this level of commerce in the past. It's not our duty to stop the poorest regions of the world from over-breeding, though, which is the main reason for poverty nowadays (including pockets of poverty in wealthy nations).