
“Wealth work” is one of America’s fastest-growing industries - kareemm
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/americas-hot-new-job-being-rich-persons-servant/595774/
======
esotericn
New?

Dude, work has been by the rich, for the rich, for about as far back as I know
of. Probably forever.

It's comparative advantage, right? You use Uber because you don't want to
drive. You use Deliveroo because you don't want to cook. The supermarket
workers earn 1/5th what you do. The restaurant staff earn 1/5th what you do.

And so on and so forth.

Anyone who makes the transition from working to middle class knows this
intimately. Suddenly you're on the other side of interactions.

Is it problematic? Sure it's problematic. The entire economy is problematic -
if everyone were upper middle class we'd melt the ice caps, faster than we do
already (damn.).

~~~
roenxi
> Dude, work has been by the rich, for the rich, for about as far back as I
> know of. Probably forever.

And indeed the link is even more basic than that. Once you get past what you
can spend to maintain a lifestyle, wealth is basically a measure of how much
of societies resources you can call in, and to make more of it the better
options are to organise people to do useful work.

It isn't a class thing that the rich organise the work. Organising people is
approximately what makes a person rich.

If someone is organising large numbers of people and is poor ... that is more
than a choice, they'd have to be working quite hard not to be bouyed into
wealth. It is easy and natural to leverage followers into riches.

~~~
ColanR
> Organising people is approximately what makes a person rich.

Which means, if we are to remove wealth inequality, we have to disincentivise
everyone from organizing other people.

~~~
arithma
If an AI is doing it, maybe, but it also has to be unhinged from all of the
people programming it or owning it. That was unthinkable until recently.

------
dustinmoris
I think it's less of "wealth work" and really just "work" and it's good and
necessary. Times are never constant, things change all the time. More
traditional work (traditional in the context of the last 50-100 years) has
been on the decline due to huge advancements in technology, globalisation and
other reasons, so it's only normal that we see many jobs go, but equally and
luckily also many new jobs come.

It's true that there is more "Uber for X" businesses out there today, but 30
years ago we also didn't have "Digital Agencies", "YouTubers", "Influencers",
"SEO Experts", "Security Engineers", "Software Architects" and obviously "Uber
Drivers". But today people have different jobs than 30 years ago and that is
alright.

Personally I see this market grow even more in the next two decades. One day
someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets to
Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event. Some might
say this is degrading work, but others will love it. We might call it "wealth
work" today with a bit of a negative meaning, but I bet a few hundred years
ago people felt the same about someone who was cutting your nails, scrubbing
your feet and giving you a head massage.

A great glimpse into the future of jobs is by looking at Japan. In Japan you
can hire someone to "cuddle with you". It's not a sex worker, but as people
feel more and more lonely, it's only natural to see a new market rise in this
space - where there is a new need (and money) there is a new potential market.

~~~
esotericn
> One day someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets
> to Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event.

This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial
meaningless thing. The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're
forcing someone to burn their time instead.

~~~
xboxnolifes
>This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial
meaningless thing.

It's not really artificial, it's the product of having _first-come-first-
served_ instead of _highest-bidder_ products.

>The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to
burn their time instead.

Ignoring the choice of FCFS instead of highest bidder, this is just what work
is. Someone is offering their time in exchange for monetary compensation.

~~~
esotericn
It is precisely artificial.

Yes, it is work. Degrading work, because it's completely pointless.

I could pay someone to move the gravel on my drive from one side to the other
over and over again for a year. Someone would probably accept that if I
structured it as an 8-hour job with health insurance etc. It'd be the most
mind-numbingly boring thing ever.

------
WarDores
Alternative take: More people are able to start their own small businesses
providing services because of increased total wealth. The wealth not only
provides clients, but also provides increased access to capital to start said
businesses.

~~~
derefr
That doesn’t explain rising _demand_ for the services these businesses
provide.

~~~
vorpalhex
More affordable and convenient. A fitness trainer doesn't have to make their
weeks worth of wages in a few hours if they have more clients in general. Also
this kind of work no longer requires hiring an entire fronting agency, just a
website ad and a cellphone.

------
simonebrunozzi
I think that "servant work" would be more apt in most cases. And it's sad, of
course, that as a society, we don't have a better answer to this growing
inequality.

------
zomg
Conversely, "Not Wealth work" is one of America's slowest-growing industries.

I'm being very tongue-in-cheek, but as it turns out, the more you make, the
more you spend. I view this as a great opportunity to supply a demand (or even
better, _create_ a demand! $$$).

------
whenanother
and the reason they wealthy are flocking to the US? because they avoid having
to pay for the social services programs to their employees which leads to huge
profits. foreign workers comes to the US and because they know they can get
all these social services once they've returned home, they can underbid their
US counterpart. the expanding different between the haves and the have not is
purely due to the world wealthy and foreign workers exploiting the lack of
social services in the US.

------
dv_dt
"wealth work" == servant

The only change is now the positions are less long term employer commitment
and more gig work than ever.

------
Bostonian
"Between 2010 and 2017, the number of manicurists and pedicurists doubled"

Lots of middle class women get manicures and pedicures. Besides, as hourly pay
at the top rises, the rich are willing to pay more per hour for labor that
saves them time. Economic growth is not a zero sum game.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Do you honestly believe the rich tip more if their wealth moves from 100 to
125 million?

~~~
knightofmars
I think you're forgetting that wealth trickles down. Extreme extra-strong
emphasis on the "trickles".

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I just don't know if that trickle rate increases as there's more to trickle.
If you're already having all your desires fulfilled, why spend more?

~~~
nybble41
Spending to satisfy your own desires directly benefits the buyer and the
seller—that's the part people tend to focus on when discussing the "trickle
down" effect—but what _doesn 't_ get spent on consumption ends up invested
instead. That improves the productivity of labor, allows more goods to be
produced at lower cost, and ultimately benefits everyone. Trade is good, but
the greatest external benefit to society comes when one consumes less than one
earns, thus leaving more for others. Even just stuffing the money in a
mattress would benefit others by reducing the competition for goods and
services; it's not as good as a profitable investment, but it's better than
wasting resources on _mal_ investment.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Wouldn't that suggest that the interest rate should be something astronomical?

~~~
nybble41
I'm not sure where you're getting a connection to high interest rates. I would
expect just the opposite; if people have their desires satisfied and are
looking to invest what's left over then their time preference will be lower
(more willing to wait) and money should be easier to get (lower interest rates
on loans).

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I was thinking the real-world version of keeping it under the mattress would
be in a savings account, which would be encouraged by high interest rates.

I'm confused as to why investing (I assume in the stock market) "improves the
productivity of labor, allows more goods to be produced at lower cost, and
ultimately benefits everyone" \- that money we invest in buying stocks, after
the stock is initially bought from the business, is just shuffling chips
around a table, it doesn't seem to be doing anything for anyone. Am I off
base? How does a company see a direct benefit from already sold stocks?

~~~
nybble41
Putting money in a savings account is still investing, which is why you're
earning interest. What I meant by "stuffing the money in a mattress" was
actually taking it out of circulation. I didn't meant to imply that this would
be more profitable than investing, just that it would still be a net benefit
to others since you're not using that money to bid up prices on things they
might want to buy. Same amount produced plus less money in circulation equals
lower average prices.

> How does a company see a direct benefit from already sold stocks?

Normally when you buy shares in the stock market, other than from an IPO or
secondary public offering, the company doesn't directly benefit from that
trade. The company received its benefit up front when it sold the shares. Of
course no one would have _bought_ the shares if they didn't expect to be able
to profit from them, either by selling to another investor or through
dividends, so the fact that a market _will_ exist is critical to any company
looking to raise capital by issuing shares to the public. A high stock price
is also beneficial to any company looking to raise funds through a secondary
public offering, and may translate into actual revenue for capital investment
if the company holds some of its equity in reserve.

What I really had in mind, however, was not buying existing shares from other
investors in the stock market but rather venture capital, IPOs, private
equity, and the purchase of corporate bonds. In each of these cases the
investment directly injects money into the company where it can be put to work
enhancing productivity.

