4 ms·

If you think about this from first principles, it is clear that work is necessary. Considering that we (self-organizing collections of matter) exist in a univer

If you think about this from first principles, it is clear that work is necessary. Considering that we (self-organizing collections of matter) exist in a universe where entropy tends to a maximum, doing work is necessary to maintain our existence. As for the moral argument as to why people on welfare are often viewed negatively, I think the reasoning is fairly obvious - most taxpayers are doing work which they don't necessarily enjoy, and may become annoyed if they think they are being exploited by people who are not working. Hence why nobody cares if a person who is not on welfare doesn't work. Finally, I would be interested to know what specific jobs the author is referring to as "BS jobs". As far as I'm aware, people are only given money if someone else finds utility in what they are doing.

d4nt 12y ago
Consider this example: I run the EMEA division of a multinational, I want to justify a bigger budget and/or get a bigger bonus and so I hire a data analyst to prepare some reports showing my division in a favourable light. The reports are well received and have desired effect for the first year or two until my competitor who runs AsiaPac realises what's happening and also hires a data analyst. The situation then returns to normal, but the company now employs two more data analysts than it did a few years ago. Neither one of us will fire our data analyst for fear of looking bad, but the data analysts are in competition and so have no net benefit to the company's performance or humanity as a whole.
- miscellaneous 12y ago
  I guess I was more looking for an entire category (or industry) of jobs that was deemed "BS" - since that is what I thought the author was implying. But nevertheless, I have considered your example. I have the following thoughts: -Are these data analysts preparing accurate (factual) reports? If so, then I would contend that they are in fact doing a useful service by allowing upper management to make better resource allocation decisions (i.e. more accurately determine which division is performing the best). -If the data analysts are employed to produce inaccurate or biased reports purely for the benefit of the division managers, then I believe this would be an example of illegal behaviour and an agency problem. For this reason, I would expect that the head office would employ (neutral) data analysts to avoid this problem.
capisce 12y ago
I'd recommend you read this article: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2012/05/27/corny_economics http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2012/05/27/corny_econ... And to point you to this comment in the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9205724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9205724 It's fully possible for one person in the chain to get positive utility from employing someone while society as a whole gets negative utility, considering negative externalities and race to the bottom-style situations, or a way less than optimal utility if you consider opportunity costs.

d4nt 12y ago

Consider this example: I run the EMEA division of a multinational, I want to justify a bigger budget and/or get a bigger bonus and so I hire a data analyst to prepare some reports showing my division in a favourable light. The reports are well received and have desired effect for the first year or two until my competitor who runs AsiaPac realises what's happening and also hires a data analyst. The situation then returns to normal, but the company now employs two more data analysts than it did a few years ago. Neither one of us will fire our data analyst for fear of looking bad, but the data analysts are in competition and so have no net benefit to the company's performance or humanity as a whole.

miscellaneous 12y ago
I guess I was more looking for an entire category (or industry) of jobs that was deemed "BS" - since that is what I thought the author was implying. But nevertheless, I have considered your example. I have the following thoughts: -Are these data analysts preparing accurate (factual) reports? If so, then I would contend that they are in fact doing a useful service by allowing upper management to make better resource allocation decisions (i.e. more accurately determine which division is performing the best). -If the data analysts are employed to produce inaccurate or biased reports purely for the benefit of the division managers, then I believe this would be an example of illegal behaviour and an agency problem. For this reason, I would expect that the head office would employ (neutral) data analysts to avoid this problem.

capisce 12y ago

I'd recommend you read this article: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2012/05/27/corny_economics http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2012/05/27/corny_econ... And to point you to this comment in the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9205724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9205724 It's fully possible for one person in the chain to get positive utility from employing someone while society as a whole gets negative utility, considering negative externalities and race to the bottom-style situations, or a way less than optimal utility if you consider opportunity costs.