

Calculating the "real value" to society of different professions - myth_drannon
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/bit-rich

======
boyer
If you equate hard work to manual labor and assign altruism an imaginary
monetary value then of course you're going to think that janitors are the
pillars holding our society up. The wealthy don't exist because its 'in our
interest' they exist because its in their interest. What kind of evil
sacrificer of men wants to drag every man of success down into the gutter of
egalitarian ruin? Moochers don't retain inherited wealth for generations and
its the men who've chosen to rise above manual labor and move our society that
become rich.

If someone makes money, it means someone values the things they produce.
Government regulation/help and fraud aside - wealth and income represent
contribution to society. If you buy an Ipod its because its worth more to you
than the money you spend on it. If you buy a loaf of bread its because you
value the loaf of bread. The fact that the farmer and Apple provide you with
the things you need doesn't give you the right to enslave them.

You don't have a right to healthcare, to healthy food, to haircuts, to
welfare, or even to happiness at my expense. You have the right to PURSUE
happiness, not the right to be happy.

This paper is nonsense.

~~~
cma
This is a fallacy. The wealth provided by something you buy isn't what you
deem it worth. There can be negative externalities. For example, positional
goods can mean the good seems worth it to you because it increases your
status, but by doing so it just lowers someone else's.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good>

~~~
houseabsolute
I'd like to call your attention to the section of this article that argues
against what you're saying.

". . . one era's luxuries are another's commonplace goods. In short, the
negative positional externality is often compensated by the public goods of
infant industry effects and research and development."

The negative externality view of positional goods seems to be a minority
opinion among economists. The examples of positional goods in the article were
further quite marginal and it would be difficult to assess what part of the
good is positional (and thus deserving of a tax to mitigate the externality)
and what part is just valuable.

------
spec
This paper does nothing to calculate any "real value" and is just a collection
of biased and discredited arguments.

Example of one of the arguments: "They have supported the propagation of the
misguided view that tax cuts are good for stimulating growth and even
increasing government tax revenues. The Nobel Prize- winning economist Paul
Krugman claims that this is not true in the context of the United States."

That's the best they can do? Because Krugman says so? This paper is a joke.

------
dantheman
I didn't see one chart or table in that entire paper; the myths & "wanted ads'
show a clear bias; this merely propaganda.

------
sysk
This paper is backed by no scientific data, is totally biased and is so wrong
on so many arguments that I don`t even know where to start. Full disclosure:
My salary sucks.

------
gamerates
[http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/12/14/111101/how-
much-a...](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/12/14/111101/how-much-are-you-
worth/)

FT: And before you start nitpicking the numbers, a word of warning from the
study:

"Our Social Return on Investment analysis is not just an intellectual exercise
– it has big implications for the way in which our society and economy are
structured. Financial incentives are very powerful, and we tend to shower them
on some of the professions that are the most socially and environmentally
costly. This promotes undesirable behaviour, while positive activities are
discouraged. .... We have not aimed for precision in our calculations – there
may be aspects of value that were left out. The point was to draw attention to
the issue. We have not included detailed recommendations because it is clear
to us that there are deep structural issues that need to be addressed, and
change will not come overnight."

On that wider `issue’ note, prepare to forget almost every economic theory
you’ve ever heard.

According to the study, the City of London is not essential for the UK economy
(manufacturing, apparently, is much more important). Low-paid jobs don’t
create a ladder for people to work their way up — social mobility is flat. The
UK doesn’t need high salaries to attract and retain talent, since higher
salaries don’t necessarily reflect the best people available. Etc.

------
DaniFong
While I'd love to see the working out of a rigorous methodology for studying
this, that particular article and study is shot through with politics.

I would really like to be able to better answer the question: how much am I
contributing? But it seems like too difficult a question to gain much traction
on, especially if politics leaves you blind.

