The modern phenomenon of nonsense jobs

[Sava]

[Kidlicious]

I could do that stupid monkey's job. Con man bastards.

Why don't you apply, and demonstrate your knowledge of econ?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

He's too lazy. His time would be better spend spamming the internetz and proclaiming himself an expert on Economics.

[Hauldren Collider]

And telling us that no one is worth more than 100,000.

[C0ckney]

No, but I know that it has happened simply by the fact that they are paid more.

lori put it very well, however i'd like to add a couple of things. firstly, you can usually attribute an increase in productivity to something. let's say that a factory is able to produce more goods with the same or fewer workers, because of say new machinery, or a more efficient division of labour. a whole industry may become productive because of automation or just in time management etc. the point is that these increases in productivity can be explained. also, if the CEOs of big companies have become enormously more productive, it seems very odd that those who work for them have not at anything like the same rate. this difference should be explicable. if you can't explain it, you should try thinking about it and doing a little research.

so i ask again, could you then explain the process by which this massive increase in CEO productivity, relative to the average worker, has happened? simply repeating that people are paid the marginal value of their product (which is generally true) is not good enough.

[C0ckney]

A lot of the extra money has actually gone into health care and education. People will expend a lot of resources to extend their existence and to attempt to make their children better off.

i don't disagree with that. however, it's also worth noting that people spend less on other things, such as food, than they did even a few decades ago.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Anyone who thinks this is a modern trend needs to take a look at history. It's packed full of jobs which, with the benefit of hindsight, now look pretty pointless.

[Sava]

He's too lazy. His time would be better spend spamming the internetz and proclaiming himself an expert on Economics.

I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.

[Sava]

And telling us that no one is worth more than 100,000.

I know it's in your nature to vastly over estimate your importance. But it's true. No single human being is worth more than that. Everyone can be replaced. Nobody is special.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.

No, that's what Kidicious does:

You don't pay more for what you buy than it's worth. You pay less. Learn some econ.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I know it's in your nature to vastly over estimate your importance. But it's true. No single human being is worth more than that. Everyone can be replaced. Nobody is special.

What an uplifting and heartwarming sentiment. No matter what you do, you're easily expendable

[molly bloom]

Anyone who thinks this is a modern trend needs to take a look at history. It's packed full of jobs which, with the benefit of hindsight, now look pretty pointless.

His job was sh!te, but perhaps not pointless.

The Groom of the Stool was a male servant in the household of an English monarch who, among other duties, “preside[d] over the office of royal excretion,” that is, he had the task of cleaning the monarch’s anus after defecation. In the early years of Henry VIII’s reign, the title was awarded to minions of the King, court companions who spent time with him in the Privy chamber. These were the sons of noblemen or important members of the gentry. In time they came to act as virtual personal secretaries to the King, carrying out a variety of administrative tasks within his private rooms. The position was an especially prized one, as it allowed one unobstructed access to the King’s attention. Despite being the official bum-wiper of the king, the Groom of the Stool had a very high social standing.

http://listverse.com/2009/09/24/top-10-strangest-jobs-in-history/

There was also a point to this, but it was still pretty sh!tty :

PUBLIC ENEMA NUMBER ONE
Though enemas never really went away, it was the pre-revolutionary French, taking a cue from their much-adored monarch, who carried an enthusiasm for enemas to the extreme. To say Louis XIV (1638-1715) was fond of enemas would be a vast understatement. The Sun King was such a fervent advocate of the procedure that he reportedly had thousands and thousands of them in his lifetime. Though the idea of the enema was much the same as in ancient times, the delivery system had evolved quite a bit. Instead of a simple bone and bottle, the clyster syringe, with its specially designed rectal nozzle and plunger, helped propel the solution into the rectum with gusto.


Enemas proved addictive to the charismatic monarch. In the beginning, every night after dinner, Louis would briefly excuse himself to indulge in a little postprandial flush. But after a few years, derriere douching became so popular that the stigma attached to it fell by the wayside. People would enjoy some three or four lavements a day. It wasn't long before Louis would actually confer with his advisors and hang out with his buddies while receiving his enemas.
And the trend wasn't reserved for royalty alone. Any fashionable lady who desired a beautiful complexion had to have enemas administered on a regular basis by servants who were experts in the task. Those slightly embarrassed by the prospect, but still desiring its beneficial effects, might purchase one of the special, bent clyster syringes, designed for self-application. Alternatively, there was an optional buttocks-cover attachment, for those modest ladies too squeamish to attend to their lavements all by themselves. Most women, however, were not modest about enemas at all. A famous account in the memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon (1675 -1755) had the Duchess of Bourgogne chatting with the king during a crowded party while her loyal maid crawled beneath her bejewelled evening gown to administer an enema.

As for the king and his own beloved bottom boosts, he credited them as the reason behind his health and longevity. Perhaps there was something to his cleansing clysters: Louis XIV ruled France for 72 years, the longest reign in modern European history. Or maybe he was just a garden-variety klismaphiliac, deriving sexual pleasure from the procedure.

http://www.doctorsreview.com/history/jul05-history/

[Sava]

What an uplifting and heartwarming sentiment. No matter what you do, you're easily expendable

I'm not about to blow sunshine up anyone's ass

[regexcellent]

lori put it very well, however i'd like to add a couple of things. firstly, you can usually attribute an increase in productivity to something. let's say that a factory is able to produce more goods with the same or fewer workers, because of say new machinery, or a more efficient division of labour. a whole industry may become productive because of automation or just in time management etc. the point is that these increases in productivity can be explained. also, if the CEOs of big companies have become enormously more productive, it seems very odd that those who work for them have not at anything like the same rate. this difference should be explicable. if you can't explain it, you should try thinking about it and doing a little research.

so i ask again, could you then explain the process by which this massive increase in CEO productivity, relative to the average worker, has happened? simply repeating that people are paid the marginal value of their product (which is generally true) is not good enough.

I don't need to know why CEOs are worth more now to know that they are. If people are paying them more IPSO FACTO they are worth more. It is NOT necessarily easy to identify why, although it probably has to do with management being comparatively more valuable as organizations become more complex.

The market is just not wrong about this stuff, or at a minimum, it is less wrong than you are.

[Sava]

you are hilarious