1. Because they are? There are whole industries that are more or less total BS. Whatever you do for these companies you are pretty much not contributing anything worthwhile to the society.
2. Because even if they contribute something to the society, they don't see the connection between what they are doing and a worthy cause. Seeing connection between what you do and the goals of the company and then understanding those goals is not very common, according to my experience.
I think once has to look below the surface. A lot of people would say cruises are decadent and waste of money. Yet they give older adults a lot of joy before they die. But maybe this doesn't meet the lofty expectations of aspirational people?
First, let's agree that just because people want something does not necessarily mean the cause is worthy. For example, people want cigarettes but you would probably agree working for a tobacco companies is not pursuing a worthy cause.
Is producing ads a worthy cause? Maybe... companies have to somehow make the customers aware of their products.
Is creating videos en masse with no content and creating huge platforms to keep people glued to shiny rectangles just for ad impressions a worthy cause? I am pretty sure stealing astronomical amounts of hours from billions of people will be seen in the future as one of larger crimes committed in our times.
Ditto polarising entire societies and screwing up with our brains through exploiting human biases to keep engagement up on social media even though an official goal might be connecting people together.
I think it is fine to pursue a goal to make people happy and enjoy their lives. Unless this is just a cover story for really doing more harm to the society than good.
>Because they are? There are whole industries that are more or less total BS. Whatever you do for these companies you are pretty much not contributing anything worthwhile to the society.
Well, according to you maybe. The customers/patrons of the company probably have a differing view.
not necessarily. so many products are bought from a top down approach where the end user is not the decision maker. i mean, how many times has a company's top managers purchased abysmally awful software, taht then needs to be used by it's employees. it happens govt all the time. our school district has purchased subscriptions to an absolutely awful online homework platform: it's clear the designers of this platform didn't do any usability studies. and now all the students and teachers in this district are screwed and forced to use this abomination.
I'm reminded of the way Star Trek explains in the 24th century the Federation doesn't use money[0].
By that yardstick, all jobs whose only purpose is moving or charging rent on money , e.g. the entire banking/finance sector, is pure bullshit waste. I tend to agree. (Not that there wouldn't need to be some efficient algorithmic distribution of resources to maximise human wellbeing, of course; To each according to their need etc.)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh3xPatEto
>By that yardstick, all jobs whose only purpose is moving or charging rent on money , e.g. the entire banking/finance sector, is pure bullshit waste. I tend to agree.
If you think "the entire banking/finance sector" is just shuffling money around, then the problem is that you have a simplified view of what they do, and therefore think their 10% (or whatever) contribution to the GDP is oversized. Banking/finance is far more than what you encounter day to day (ie. retail banking). They also assess risk, make forecasts, and make decisions on how capital is allocated. All of that requires staff and costs money.
>(Not that there wouldn't need to be some efficient algorithmic distribution of resources to maximise human wellbeing, of course; To each according to their need etc.)
Given how DAOs turned out in the past few years, I'm skeptical that'll ever work out.
How much rent seeking and regulatory capture that goes on is enabled by modern finance?
What about bailouts for financial institutions that are too big to fail - the idea of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses?
Real wages are down and income inequality is up over the last several decades, coinciding with a lot of growth in the finance industry. Subprime and payday loans, 30 year mortgages backed by the government, leveraged buyouts, stock buybacks, tax havens, etc. Private and public debt levels are way higher than at any time prior to WWII. Right from the age of 18 we have kids signing large student loans, the banks don't care about their risk since the loans are federally backed and will follow these kids until the day they die.
A lot of people feel that the general public is being squeezed by financiers. Are they wrong?
> They also assess risk, make forecasts, and make decisions on how capital is allocated.
I think they were making a critique of neoliberal capitalism, which might be represented as:
1. Capital efficiency
2. ???
3. Social benefit
Obviously, if you've bought in, #2 doesn't feel at all vague to you. But it's not uncommon for many to step back and see the whole enterprise as an underpants gnome scheme that's on track for a lot of underpantsless global citizens.
2. Because even if they contribute something to the society, they don't see the connection between what they are doing and a worthy cause. Seeing connection between what you do and the goals of the company and then understanding those goals is not very common, according to my experience.