<p>jason: step up your ■■■■■ game–it’s pretty weak.</p>
<p>Let’s just start ignoring this kid.</p>
<p>why are you giving this kid the satisfaction of feeling important, by constantly replying to this garbage =P</p>
<p>What happened to “Just follow your dreams?” When did the right answer become “you can’t be a banker” if you want to be a kind person?</p>
<p>The efficient allocation of resources is extremely important to a dynamic economy, a necessary condition to raise standards of living. Bankers play an important role in that. Bankers helped get Steve Jobs back to Apple in 1997, where he helped create tons of happiness in America and even some charitable apps on the iPhone! Without bankers, we wouldn’t have a economy anywhere near $15 trillion and we’d be sending a lot of poor “guest workers” back to certain Spanish-speaking countries to enjoy their poverty!</p>
<p>As for this comment</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I guess I prefer to take a much more expansive view of what is “good for society”. Even under the more cozy view of “good for society”, there are many indirect elements that must be in place for that to occur, including financing.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This attempt at refutation can easily be dispersed by saying explicitly what might have been silently presumed: a participant in society must follow the law.</p>
<p>
I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t have anything to do with my point. Look, jason is arguing that salary is indicative of usefulness to society. I’m saying that it is indicative of profit for the employer. There isn’t anything wrong with that; I’m actually a fan of Ayn Rand (albeit one tempered by deep-rooted pragmatism). But there isn’t anything right about it either.</p>
<p>Is it bad that banks make money? I don’t think so. Is it useful to society? Perhaps not.
Laws can be changed. Burglary is illegal, but we don’t argue that it is wrong because it is illegal. Rather, it is illegal because we view it as wrong. Personal profit does not always determine societal usefulness - that’s why we have laws and regulations.</p>
<p>■■■■■. search his other post. Don’t bite.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s indicative of ability to meet society’s material demands, but your point is taken.</p>
<p>I think it’s really quite useful for society’s members to have a place to save their money and for banks to exist to reallocate that capital. If in the future there is a Star Trek-like cashless, non-material society, we can talk about that but that’s not how it is now. </p>
<p>This and you second comment raises the question - what if we have a lawless society where burglary is not illegal and belongings must be protected with physical means. It still goes back to the basic question what is good for society.</p>
<p>From my previous post #16
</p>
<p>It looks like no one paid attention at that time…hopefully you will now.</p>
<p>
Sure, but you have a lot of ground to cover before you prove the whole point. You have to show that increasingly profitable banks that earn their money with the help of increasingly highly-paid employees provide increasing usefulness to society. The same would be necessary for any other field.</p>
<p>Is that a ridiculous burden? Yeah, which is why the question in the OP was phenomenally stupid. Usefulness and kindness are not mutually exclusive, and both are terribly subjective anyway.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think burglary is good for society because it does not create any value. It just reallocates wealth already in existence. Therefore, some people still have to create value through other means but they lose the incentive to do so if all their stuff will just be stolen.</p>
<p>Jason was ■■■■■■■■ HSL for some time before he ended up here. I don’t find him as annoying as most ■■■■■■, for some reason.</p>
<p>Alright ill try to respond to some of these posts.</p>
<p>@noimagination: If you mug my house and sell the TV on black market, the profits you make are not taxed. You are not helping the poor. You said it yourself: burglary “does not create any value.” The harding working entrepreneur does. Companies provide services and goods that people want and are willing to pay for.</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl: I value the Ibanker because he the more productive of the two. He provides around $13-15 million of service (most assume 70% of the money he earns get paid as wage) while the Nurse provides much less. He has a bigger stake on society’s resources. Isn’t that what competition is about? Is it about being the best you can and being useful to society? Dont countries teach their young to be of service to their mother nation? What better way to do so than by providing valuable service in return for a 30% less valuable paycheck?</p>
<p>@ Other people: Someone’s analysis was correct in saying that very few people actually answered my question. Most of you are repulsed by the actually thought provoking question and immediately raised arms by defining “useful” or assaulting me as a “■■■■■.” As theGFG said, if you separate the personal details out, the question is actually quite valid. There is to an extent inverse relationship between being kind and being useful: you dont have time or energy for both. Its hard to be the best in your field while holding boy scout cook overs, poor people clothing drives, or substitute for your local pastor. It simply does not make sense to do so.</p>
<p>If you work out the calculations, at a certain salary point, you are more helpful to the poor by working 1 hour than by doing volunteer work. Thus, beyond a certain point, being useful is actually better than being kind to the people in need (due to taxes).</p>
<p>Back to the question. I think my dad and my argument is that society is better off with an “useful” person than a “kind” one. Any further challenges to the definition of the two will be met with a challenge to the other. (ask me to define useful and i will ask you to define kind).</p>
<p>Did you read the NYT article about the case for the $320,000 kindergarten teacher? It appears you can be kind (teaching small children) and useful (increasing the children’s projected earning power) - at least using Jason’s fractured definitions.</p>
<p>if giving someone fish is being useful, but teaching him * how* to fish is being kind- which is better for the group and the individual?</p>
<p>
Oh, so profit isn’t the only thing that determines usefulness. A minor change in your position, wouldn’t you say?
What is kindness? What is usefulness? Your terms are subjective, and most people aren’t even bothering to respond because they do not view the two as mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>^^^ I clearly said: “Income determines usefulness, if it is legal.”</p>
<p>I did not say income. Even if you want to hardball with burglary, you’d have to steal many many many T.V’s to be considered middle class. Bank Heists on average get $10,000 each successful try. You’d have to hit 4-5 banks a year to be considered middle class. You’d have to hit 25-30 banks a year to be considered very useful. You wont get far.</p>
<p>@Woody. A case is a case. I can make a case for a $1,000,000,000,000…000,000 doctor(a life is invaluable, so if you save a life, you get all the money in the universe). But it wont become reality, just like the case for the $320,000 kindergarten teacher. Please limit your discussion of earnings in the present day.</p>
<p>@emeraldkity: If that is your definition, very few people are “kind.” All of the donations to Africa CERTAINLY dont show kindness (most efforts are for food and water relief. Very very few efforts are being made to make farmers more efficient.). All of the food drives by grade schoolers certainly lack kindness… This is your definition right?</p>
<p>
Why only if it’s legal? I mean, that would seem to imply that the first and foremost standard on usefulness is legality. What factors go into the creation of laws?</p>
<p>Legal infrastructure is necessary to promote social stability and lower costs of doing business. With out a legal infrastructure to deter actions that intolerably hurt others, the cost of business goes up. If people are going to steal your T.V., pretty soon your private companies are going to take matters into their own hands by hiring mercenaries and private armies (“Why only if it’s legal?”) to “properly punish” those who steal from you.</p>
<p>Fine. If you want to go into the illegal industries be my guest. Just know that those lucrative careers of selling drugs? Less than minimum wage an hour. You might want to consider the opportunity costs of doing so. Getting caught means giving up X years of salary. VERY VERY VERY few illegal jobs pay well. Only the top men in the underground industry even get paid over $100,000. </p>
<p>See Freakonomics. Drug dealers risk a 25% chance of arrest and a SIGNIFICANT risk of death (you’d be orders of magnitudes safer in Iraq as a G.I.) every year on the streets for around 3-5$ an hour all in vain hopes of attaining one of the 20 “Board of Director” positions that pay over $500,000 a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, if your dad’s right, and society is better off with a useful person than a kind one, and you are useful but not kind, then what’s the problem? Why is your dad crying about you when you’re in bed at night, then, and why are you so worried about disappointing him – you’re useful, right?</p>
<p>Do you have some kind of disorder relating to people? No, I’m being totally serious. Your statements are not that of a normal person.</p>
<p>He probably doesnt care as much. Its probably my mom crying lol.</p>
<p>Im not too terribly worried about disappointing him. Its a mild concern. Like when your friend falls and scrapes his knees. There’s blood. You ask “Dude you ok?”
He says," Yeah."
Then you never think about it again.
Next day he gets knee surgery.</p>
<p>You see, i can be happy with myself because for every parents like mine that exists, there are many more parents who wish their kids were smarter, more diligent, and -well, lets say it- useful to society. Flip through the parents forum to confirm. Those with underchieving sons or daughters, spoiled brats who wont work, insecurities about whether their kids are going to “make it.”</p>
<p>@jasonInNy:</p>
<ol>
<li>Actions that are blatantly harmful to society are outlawed.</li>
<li>Therefore, illegal acts are not useful to society.</li>
<li>Some illegal acts are profitable. Your points about the pragmatic value of a life of crime are irrelevant. Even if it isn’t a wise career move, it is possible to make a great deal of money through criminal activities. However, they are still considered harmful to society. We can conclude that profit does not determine usefulness.</li>
</ol>