SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-you-a-net-gain-or-a-net-drain? dept.
Many jobs have spillover effects on the rest of society. For instance, the value of new treatments discovered by biomedical researchers is far greater than what they or their employers get paid, so they have positive spillovers. Other jobs have negative spillovers, such as those that generate pollution.
A forthcoming paper, by economists at UPenn and Yale,1 reports a survey of the economic literature on these spillover benefits for the 11 highest-earning professions.
There's very little literature, so all these estimates are very, very uncertain, and should be not be taken literally. But it's interesting reading.
Here are the bottom lines – see more detail on the estimates below. (Note that we already discussed an older version of this paper, but the estimates have been updated since then.)
(Emphasis in original retained.)
At the top, researchers who generate +$950,440 in positive externalities; at the bottom, financiers who generate -$104,000 in negative externalities. In a glaring omission, telephone sanitisers were not listed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 29 2017, @08:19AM (3 children)
You identify generation of economic activity - but what is the societal benefit there?
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday June 29 2017, @10:56AM
No economy => no society ?
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:14PM (1 child)
Um, do you really need an answer to that? As the other poster said, no economy = no society and no civilization. Seemingly pointless stuff like that gives people jobs and makes the economy function. I'm sure sports fans can give you intangible reasons sports benefit society too, though I disagree with them. Likewise, I can give you reasons that the music I prefer benefits society substantially and everyone would be far better off if they stopped listening to certain genres of music I don't like, and listened instead to music that I do like. Or I could tell you why society would be better if people stopped watching TV shows I don't like, and instead spent their TV-watching time watching movies or TV shows that I approve of.
In your mind, is something a waste of time if it doesn't have an immediately apparent benefit to society, such as curing cancer? Do you never watch movies, listen to music, or do anything at all for sheer entertainment? You sound like a very dull person. Heck, I could go much further: do you spend any time exercising? What's the societal benefit of that? Some would say reduction of resources needed to keep you healthy and avoid expensive medical treatments. But why not just euthanize you instead? Which brings us to the problem of: what's the point of even having people or a society? Why not just euthanize everyone at once?
Maybe you should go take some philosophy classes.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 03 2017, @10:06AM
> In your mind, is something a waste of time if it doesn't have an immediately apparent benefit to society, such as curing cancer?
> Do you never watch movies, listen to music, or do anything at all for sheer entertainment?
You missed my point. The "societal benefit" is the entertainment provided. The economic benefit/whatever is at best a fringe benefit.
I thought the OP was emphasising the revenue generated above the actual entertainment provided, which was, to my mind, the wrong weighting. I Should have been a bit clearer...