> Just passively consume and spend. Let other people keep the world from falling apart around you.
One would presumably need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption. So, they are likely the very people who are keeping the world from falling apart. The professional activists on the other hand...
Surveys show that vast number of people are working what they believe to be pointless jobs - and yes it makes them unhappy.
So no, people do not need to be creating value to be paid.
And of those who think their jobs aren’t pointless, still most of tasks can be pointless. My job isn’t pointless as a whole, but still about 60% is spent on stuff that should not be needed and helps no one, especially not the business. Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important.
“ >> Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important.
> Sounds like it is providing value to someone then?”
That conclusion nicely shows the quality of these rebuttals. According to it, A person in the cto office making utterly pointless work is “adding value” because they feel important while the business is harmed.
And yes they make utterly pointless work as in the end it turned out they had spent weeks trying to justify what was actually a restriction imposed by an error they’d made - the wrong role assignment by their team.
The world is messy and disorganised. People are fallible and at times stupid. The people who keep things working despite this might feel that their jobs are pointless. That doesn't mean that the people paying them to do the job see it the same way.
Sure, as an omniscient, infallible being you might be frustrated at all the waste. You might rightly be angry at imbeciles like me who can't see through it. But at the end of they day this nonsense keeps things from completely falling apart.
>” That doesn't mean that the people paying them to do the job see it the same way.”
Blood letting as a medieval standard practice to cure diseases was a valuable job per these definitions.
If value is redefined as anything that anyone anywhere thinks should be done regardless of the actual effect, then sure my points are wrong when evaluated with that criteria.
Okay you disagree, I get it. But refrain from unctuous condescension. I have never claimed to be infallible or omniscient so please stop painting it as if I have.
>> need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption.
Why? A very large percentage of income is "passive". Even Marge Simpson has a trust fund setup by her relatives. And mutual funds, family income, real estate appreciation, pensions ... I'd say that there are large numbers of relatively wealthy people don't actually have jobs that require work. Their role in society is to consume, and occasionally vote.
The Simpsons were designed as the typical american family in every way. When the writers invented them having a family trust they were making a statement that such trusts are commonplace and normal in American society, at least normal enough that the audience would understand the concept. Thirty years ago very few average people would have even known the word. Things have changes since the series started.
One would presumably need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption. So, they are likely the very people who are keeping the world from falling apart. The professional activists on the other hand...