Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The modern phenomenon of nonsense jobs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The author of this article seems to be operating under at least one obviously wrong assumption which is that labor (or anything actually) has intrinsic value.

    haha this guy is so ****ing dumb every sentence is like looking at a fractal of idiocy.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
      If people only did things they enjoyed we would be in a real mess. The economy functions on the back of those who hate their job.
      I must be selfish then.
      "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
      Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Asher View Post
        I love my job.

        Maybe if people stopped ****ing around and did things they enjoyed, this wouldn't be as big an issue.
        because like 95% of people wouldn't work if they didn't have to

        It's nice that you love your job. Most everyone doesn't. So shut up.
        To us, it is the BEAST.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
          The author of this article seems to be operating under at least one obviously wrong assumption which is that labor (or anything actually) has intrinsic value.
          If he thought labor was intrinsically valuable he wouldn't believe corporate lawyers are worthless.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by AAAAAAAAH! View Post
            Summary: anthropology professor can't understand why people need corporate lawyers.
            Lawyers don't sue, people do
            In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
              The author of this article seems to be operating under at least one obviously wrong assumption which is that labor (or anything actually) has intrinsic value.
              Please point out to the passage(s) corroborating this interpretation.

              haha this guy is so ****ing dumb every sentence is like looking at a fractal of idiocy.
              We'll see.
              In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Asher View Post
                I love my job.

                Maybe if people stopped ****ing around and did things they enjoyed, this wouldn't be as big an issue.
                It's not always easy to do what you really love. Someone always ends on the wrong side of specialization.
                In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Oncle Boris View Post
                  It's not always easy to do what you really love. Someone always ends on the wrong side of specialization.
                  Working a job you don't like is a choice.

                  DUH
                  To us, it is the BEAST.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Oncle Boris View Post
                    Lawyers don't sue, people do
                    Yes, in the case of corporations it's often because they want to protect their intellectual property. Or they might need a lawyer to make sure what they're doing is legal and won't get them in legal trouble. The number of laws and regulations a corporation must comply with is truly enormous. I guess we'd have fewer "nonsense jobs" if the government regulated the economy less. The government creates lots of jobs for paper-pushers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by AAAAAAAAH! View Post
                      The number of laws and regulations a corporation must comply with is truly enormous.
                      as it should be

                      but yet, they still manage to leech insane amounts of money out of the economy... and ignore all those pesky laws
                      To us, it is the BEAST.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                        The answer to this is really ****ing obvious and it's because they produce way more than everyone else. It's not a bad thing.
                        some people produce more than others, but that does a very poor job of explaining most differences in wealth, for a number of reasons.

                        i'll give an example from the US, but the pattern is the same in the UK and other western countries.

                        The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.
                        according to your reasoning, CEOs have become 1000% more productive than the average worker since 1950 and their productivity, relative to the average worker, has increased nearly twofold from the year 2000. is that really the case, or is there something else going on? i suggest you think about it.
                        "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                        "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
                          Econ fail.
                          you are not equipped for this discussion.
                          "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                          "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                            some people produce more than others, but that does a very poor job of explaining most differences in wealth, for a number of reasons.

                            i'll give an example from the US, but the pattern is the same in the UK and other western countries.



                            according to your reasoning, CEOs have become 1000% more productive than the average worker since 1950 and their productivity, relative to the average worker, has increased nearly twofold from the year 2000. is that really the case, or is there something else going on? i suggest you think about it.
                            CEO's are the least productive people in the world. Their salaries and bonuses are a severe misallocation of resources.

                            As a general rule, anyone who makes more than $100k does not deserve their pay.
                            To us, it is the BEAST.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                              you are not equipped for this discussion.
                              Identifying your failure isn't having a discussion. If I wanted to discuss this with you I would try to teach you basic economics. But that would be a waste of time.
                              I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                              - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Why did Keynes's promised utopia - still being eagerly awaited in the 1960s - never materialise? The standard line is he didn't predict the massive increase in consumerism. Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we've collectively chosen the latter. This presents a nice morality tale, but even a moment's reflection shows it can't really be true. Yes, we have witnessed the creation of an endless variety of new jobs and industries since the 1920s, but very few have anything to do with the production and distribution of sushi, iPhones or fancy sneakers.
                                i think the author dismisses this point too easily. it's fairly clear that people have chosen and do choose to have more things over working less. the really interesting question is why. we are bombarded on a daily basis with advertisements and messages, both overt and covert, telling us about things which can make our lives better in some way. products are promoted as giving the purchaser or user one or more of the following: ease, 'cool', social acceptance and advancement, sexual success; in short happiness. no other message, be it political, social, moral or religious is given to us all with such force and consistency as the one to buy, buy buy. this is why, for example, 3-5 year olds can recognise brand logos and names (google it, if you don't know what i'm talking about).

                                Kids who get branding at a young age tend to be what we think of as bright kids. McAlister and Cornwell found that the more sophisticated a child's "executive function" (which covers growing abilities to sort and reason rather than actual knowledge), the more likely that child was to have begun using brands as in the same ways an adult might. The savvier kids had gone even beyond the already sophisticated step of associating logos, objects and locations with a particular brand and were beginning to add values. "About 30 percent of the children could offer and support a judgment about how others would view a user of a product," McAlister told me. A child might say that another child who had a birthday party at McDonald's might have lots of friends (here, the questioned child could point to a box on a grid filled with lots of happy faces) because "McDonald's has a playground and you can play there and everyone likes you."
                                the real genius of the consumer society is that it isn't compulsory. anyone, if they so choose, can, to a greater or lesser extent, opt out. so in a sense we all freely choose to participate in the consumer society. however, it's very important to recognise and think about the environment in which those choices are made. there are serious costs to not participating, both practical and social (hence why i'm posting this on a computer, in an urban setting, instead of living in a shack in the hills - well that and the fact that i couldn't do that because someone else owns the land - but that's another thread right there), and for this reason, very few people choose to opt out entirely. this combination of practicalities, social pressure and the idea, implanted from a very early age, that more things equals happiness, means that our choices are reduced to which baubles or trinkets we buy; instead of a real choice between more leisure and more things, which advancing techology should afford us.
                                "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                                "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X