Hacker News Reader

Comment by MontyCarloHall | Hacker News Reader

>Life and business is not about profit. It’s about bettering the lives of people.

This mentality results in the grass at the Taj Mahal being cut with hand tools [0], or Japan having a whole category of "useless jobs" like elevator operators [1, 2] that simply exist to provide employment. Taken to an extreme, this is the broken windows makework fallacy. If I smash a lot of windows, the local glazier gets paid handsomely, at the expense of everyone who had to pay for window replacements.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wAH8jj9cm_o

[1] https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2015/06...

[2] http://www.ageekinjapan.com/elevator-operator/

View on HN

Anything taken to an extreme is extreme, that includes capitalism.

We know that turning everyone and everything into a product has it's own set of negative outcomes. Trying to play this off as a binary situation is a form of extremism in itself.

There is already the term Bullshit Jobs [1] for service economies like the US where huge numbers of people are employed as part of company bureaucracy rather than representing the most efficient outcome.

Simply put trying to run a society like a business is going to ensure that you get such a large number of people unhappy that you start a revolution that tries to burn everything down and leads to a lot of death.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

Are those people cutting the grass/operating the elevators happier/unhappier than they would be otherwise? (I don't know, but perhaps you do). You seem to be strongly implying that this is in some way "wrong" rather than a subjectively different view of the purpose of human existence - for what reason? (I'll ignore the glazier example as it seems quite extreme, and also comes with more obvious/specific "victims").

>Are those people cutting the grass/operating the elevators happier/unhappier than they would be otherwise?

There are numerous studies that show menial labor leads to poor mental health. Perhaps these people employed as makework automatons are happier than they would be if they had no employment whatsoever and were destitute on the street, but these are not the only two alternatives.

>I'll ignore the glazier example as it seems quite extreme, and also comes with more obvious/specific "victims"

The "victims" at the Taj Mahal/department store are the visitors/customers who have to pay slightly higher prices as a result. While not as extreme as the glazier in the broken window fallacy, the grass cutters/elevator operators exist on the exact same spectrum.

I think what leads to poor mental health is varied - poverty is definitely one cause, presumably one which is lessened in this case. I completely agree with you that there are more than two alternatives, but society seems unwilling/unable to consider any of the more radical.

You could frame those visitors to the Taj Mahal as victims, but that takes quite a narrow and short-term view of value to them. Would the Taj Mahal be as pleasant a place to visit if it were in an even more unequal and precarious society than it is? We all pay for things that don't directly benefit us through taxation (usually). The childless pay for schools, the car-less pay for roads, but we benefit from the society that having them creates. It seems hard to say that those visitors to the Taj Mahal would not benefit from being in a more prosperous and sustainable society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com