
The 10 most harmful jobs (2015) - dandelion_lover
https://80000hours.org/2015/08/what-are-the-10-most-harmful-jobs
======
paulddraper
Lots of weird assertions, but one stood out to me.

> 10\. Tax minimisation for the super rich

> The more you’re working for the very rich, the more likely that that money
> would be better used by governments

I don't see how that's true. Super rich people are super rich _because_ they
use their money well. E.g. Warren Buffett.

I agree that spending huge amounts of money to save huge amounts of money
because the tax laws are a million pages is wasteful.

~~~
antidealist
> I agree that spending huge amounts of money to save huge amounts of money
> because the tax laws are a million pages is wasteful.

Gov bureaucrats should take some lessons from software engineers

------
mmacvicarprett
"50% of Zynga’s revenue comes from 0.15% of users who use their products an
enormous amount. Some of these people pay vast sums for access to ‘items’ in
the game. It’s plausible that their lives are being made worse." Well lots of
people pay vast of money in a lot of different hobbies, games are hobbies. At
the same time millions of users played the game for free, even if its true
that it may be negative for a part of those 0.15% it is a pretty good thing
for the rest.

~~~
EdgarVerona
I think part of their assertion is that even being able to play the game for
free isn't necessarily a good thing. It's an interesting problem, one that I
am still on the fence about myself.

You see companies that are trying their best to make their games compulsive
but not fulfilling. Or companies that aren't trying to do that but do so
anyways. Games that consist entirely or nearly entirely of extrinsic
motivators; at what point are we playing these games because we are genuinely
entertained, and at what point has it become a compulsion leveraging our
psychological vulnerabilities? At what point is something that we perceive to
be enjoying actually harming us? And if there is a point at which that occurs,
what can we do about it?

I struggle with this question on both sides of the fence: as a consumer and as
a producer. It is complex, and sometimes this very question keeps me up at
night. The question is so much more complicated than "am I having fun," or
even "do I _perceive_ that I'm getting value out of this."

Sadly, I don't have any answers. Just a lot of doubts.

------
joeblow9999
> 10\. Tax minimisation for the super rich

"harmful"? Please.

I'd replace that one with "working for the IRS".

One must believe that _all_ money taken by the govt is somehow always put to
great use and additionally, the revenue and spending levels are a fixed amount
that cannot change. And even then tax minimisation for the super rich can be
seen as a good in many ways. To say "more likely that that money would be
better used by governments" requires astonishing levels of naivete.

Good grief.

~~~
georgeecollins
Let me replace the term government with democracy in your arguement, because
the US is a democracy. You believe that the money is better spent by a wealthy
individual then by the democratic will of the people. That may be true. But if
you believe it then why not replace democracy with plutocracy?

------
open-source-ux
Aren't we all culpable for factory farming to a certain degree? Few of us are
prepared to pay more for meat with higher welfare standards. In Europe and
North America we eat more meat today than in any time in history. And more
cheaply than ever before.

Ending factory farming means eating much less meat and paying more for high
welfare standards. How many people in the 'Western world' are prepared to do
that? Not enough to make a difference.

------
mythrwy
I'd add government contracting on wasteful or pork-barrel projects.

------
microcolonel
> 6\. Weapons research

Oh come on, how how naïve do you have to be to think that developing weapons
increases violence?

~~~
mattashii
It does not per se increases violence, but surely increases the impact of
violence. Compare a revolver with a semi-automatic or a fully automatic rifle:
the speed and efficiency in which you can cause harm increases greatly.

As a result of the development of such weapons, incidents have gotten a worse
outcome.

Yes, you'll still have incidents without weapon development, but they'll at
least not get much worse if availability stays the same.

~~~
microcolonel
Revolvers are semi automatic. Breach loader or bolt action might be a better
metaphor?

Anyway, we have enough human bodies laying around that the most ineffective
weapons can be mobilized to grave consequences. What you need is motivation.

Also, if north americans are squeamish about developing new weaponry, that
just means the rest of the world will catch up and surpass them. This creates
a sort of power vacuum which would inevitably lead to an invasion or a civil
war. I would argue that that's a worse outcome than outright war.

------
tradersam
> 10\. Tax minimisation for the super rich

This was a good one.

