I was fascinated by the comments on Jacob's re-post on his blog:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/quick ... s-job.html
So my question is, if you are willing to do pointless work (not making the world a better place), would you be willing to do a job that is worse than pointless - for a price? Something that not only adds no value, but actually does some harm.
Hypothetically, let's use the examples Jacob used:
1. Digging holes and filling them up again.
2. Writing “I’m working” over and over on a form and then throwing those forms in the wastebasket.
But I'll add that for each hold you dig, a gallon of oil leaks into the ocean. And for each form you fill out, a tree is chopped down and burned.
Would you be willing to do this for any price? If so, how much? I would not be willing to do this, but I admit that I already make a very good income. I honestly don't know if I'd do it if I was struggling to provide for my family. I like to think that I would still find another way...
What are you willing to do?
I usually look at the blog but for whatever reason have not looked at the comments much. I just read through the comments on the pointless repost. I need to read those comments more! tjt, your very logical extension of the original scheme is poignant. Many jobs dig, fill the hole, and leak oil into the ocean (or fumes in the atmosphere) just to get the job done.
Given my thoughts about my current job, its usefulness to society, and the amount I'm making...
Also assuming that the job is not rewarding in the sense that the work is not interesting, doesn't make me a better person (healthier for instance), and is tedious - I'd probably have to be paid $250k/year to do it. Maybe $200k.
Also assuming that the job is not rewarding in the sense that the work is not interesting, doesn't make me a better person (healthier for instance), and is tedious - I'd probably have to be paid $250k/year to do it. Maybe $200k.
This is kind of a false dilemma, as EVERY job does some harm to society. Does your job require electricity? Your job probably pollutes the environment. There is almost always some price at which we accept these harms. If the price you paid me to dump oil was enough to clean up said oil with a tidy profit on top, then of course if do it. An exception may be "irreplaceable" harms like loss of life. Still, loss of life is not as unacceptable as some may wish. For example, consider the coal miners who are injured or die to get the coal for the electricity for your computer so you can do your job. As a society, we accept certain harms for the net benefits they provide.
@bigato:
Did you answer the question yet?
Just kidding, I get your point, just wondering where you would draw the line. The point of the question was to challenge the thoughts you just drew.
@ everyone:
I realize the question has some realism in that every job has some negative affect on society (as well as, hopefully, a positive affect.) I design computers and servers, and I realize that this increases communication (and quite possibly powers this forum), yet consumes natural resources to do it. I like to believe that its a net gain for the environment because this technology drives less printed paper (trees) and less travel vs. online collaboration (oil). this is what keeps me going, despite the fact that I know I romanticize the use cases.
But the theoretical question remains, if you aren't adding any positive value (like the examples) and only negative to the world, would you do it for a fee?
And for the people that would, would you still do it if you knew that you were part of a larger group of people that multiplies the affect? for instance, it's no big deal if one person dumps a few gallons of oil into the ocean. But what if you knew that you were one of a million that was going to do it? Would you still do it for personal gain?
Did you answer the question yet?
Just kidding, I get your point, just wondering where you would draw the line. The point of the question was to challenge the thoughts you just drew.@ everyone:
I realize the question has some realism in that every job has some negative affect on society (as well as, hopefully, a positive affect.) I design computers and servers, and I realize that this increases communication (and quite possibly powers this forum), yet consumes natural resources to do it. I like to believe that its a net gain for the environment because this technology drives less printed paper (trees) and less travel vs. online collaboration (oil). this is what keeps me going, despite the fact that I know I romanticize the use cases.
But the theoretical question remains, if you aren't adding any positive value (like the examples) and only negative to the world, would you do it for a fee?
And for the people that would, would you still do it if you knew that you were part of a larger group of people that multiplies the affect? for instance, it's no big deal if one person dumps a few gallons of oil into the ocean. But what if you knew that you were one of a million that was going to do it? Would you still do it for personal gain?
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
A lot depends on whether there is an alternative income available.
For instance, becoming a pirate from Somalia doesn't look like a bad alternative compared to living the average life in Somalia. Personally I'd become an illegal alien in another country before becoming a pirate, but it's easy to see how such choices are taken when the alternatives are crap.
For instance, becoming a pirate from Somalia doesn't look like a bad alternative compared to living the average life in Somalia. Personally I'd become an illegal alien in another country before becoming a pirate, but it's easy to see how such choices are taken when the alternatives are crap.