The modern phenomenon of nonsense jobs

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Philadelphia School District. I went to a magnet school, the highest rated public school in the state of PA.

Wow! This is the best Pennsylvania can do? Only two foreign languages and they don't teach Economics?

[KrazyHorse]

Remember that this IS the state that gave us Philadelphia, the toilet of the midatlantic.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Oh, it must have. I flunked Latin.

[Kidlicious]

The problem with high school economics is it's usually taught by somebody with a degree in history.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh, it must have. I flunked Latin.

You went to Catholic School?

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Nope. I just wanted to be all wise and edumacated.

[Hauldren Collider]

Remember that this IS the state that gave us Philadelphia, the toilet of the midatlantic.

Even Pittsburgh is nicer than Philadelphia.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ideally a product or service would be cheaper without all the administrative costs that we see today, but then we don't live in an ideal world. Firms have to be competitive to survive.

It's all about butts in the seats. What helps gets butts in the seats? People. Doesn't matter if your product is the superior product if nobody uses it.

[Ben Kenobi]

If Coca Cola and Pepsi are battling over market share it's not necessarily a productive enterprise. For smaller companies with products that aren't already well known, marketing certainly is productive.

If it didn't impact the bottom line for Coca Cola and Pepsi, would they be doing it? Points of market share are critical in their industry. Would they have any sales at all without marketing? In terms of a productive enterprise - what they spend on marketing is why they are the big 2. Not because they sell better pop.

(I've been here too long. I almost said soda).

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Of course it impacts their bottom line. The point is people aren't buying better coke than they would if the major soft drink companies didn't spend so much on marketing. Therefore in this case marketing doesn't contribute much to society.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course it impacts their bottom line. The point is people aren't buying better coke than they would if the major soft drink companies didn't spend so much on marketing. Therefore in this case marketing doesn't contribute much to society.

How does one define, 'productive to society'? Coca Cola and Pepsi are meeting the desire for people to have tasty non-alcoholic drinks. Just because you don't use their products doesn't mean that they aren't a productive enterprise. Marketing is what makes them the money they need to produce. No money, no pop.

[The Mad Monk]

Of course it impacts their bottom line. The point is people aren't buying better coke than they would if the major soft drink companies didn't spend so much on marketing. Therefore in this case marketing doesn't contribute much to society.

It only has to contribute to the company to be useful.

[regexcellent]

More accurately, people might not know about Coca-Cola or think to buy it without the advertising, so it's improving society by giving more people access to tasty soft drinks.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

More accurately, people might not know about Coca-Cola or think to buy it without the advertising, so it's improving society by giving more people access to tasty soft drinks.

I'm talking about marginal, not aggregate, benefits of Coca-Cola's advertising. They're well past the point where people might not know about it. At this point they're spending money to take market share from other companies, who retaliate by spending money to take market share from Coca Cola.

[Kidlicious]

It's all about butts in the seats. What helps gets butts in the seats? People. Doesn't matter if your product is the superior product if nobody uses it.

From an economics standpoint I don't care if people buy pepsi or coke, only that they get the best deal possible.