The 10 most harmful jobs (2015) | Hacker News Reader

The 10 most harmful jobs (2015)

80000hours.org

Lots of weird assertions, but one stood out to me.

> 10. Tax minimisation for the super rich

> The more you’re working for the very rich, the more likely that that money would be better used by governments

I don't see how that's true. Super rich people are super rich because they use their money well. E.g. Warren Buffett.

I agree that spending huge amounts of money to save huge amounts of money because the tax laws are a million pages is wasteful.

> I agree that spending huge amounts of money to save huge amounts of money because the tax laws are a million pages is wasteful.

Gov bureaucrats should take some lessons from software engineers

"50% of Zynga’s revenue comes from 0.15% of users who use their products an enormous amount. Some of these people pay vast sums for access to ‘items’ in the game. It’s plausible that their lives are being made worse." Well lots of people pay vast of money in a lot of different hobbies, games are hobbies. At the same time millions of users played the game for free, even if its true that it may be negative for a part of those 0.15% it is a pretty good thing for the rest.

I think part of their assertion is that even being able to play the game for free isn't necessarily a good thing. It's an interesting problem, one that I am still on the fence about myself.

You see companies that are trying their best to make their games compulsive but not fulfilling. Or companies that aren't trying to do that but do so anyways. Games that consist entirely or nearly entirely of extrinsic motivators; at what point are we playing these games because we are genuinely entertained, and at what point has it become a compulsion leveraging our psychological vulnerabilities? At what point is something that we perceive to be enjoying actually harming us? And if there is a point at which that occurs, what can we do about it?

I struggle with this question on both sides of the fence: as a consumer and as a producer. It is complex, and sometimes this very question keeps me up at night. The question is so much more complicated than "am I having fun," or even "do I perceive that I'm getting value out of this."

Sadly, I don't have any answers. Just a lot of doubts.

> 10. Tax minimisation for the super rich

"harmful"? Please.

I'd replace that one with "working for the IRS".

One must believe that all money taken by the govt is somehow always put to great use and additionally, the revenue and spending levels are a fixed amount that cannot change. And even then tax minimisation for the super rich can be seen as a good in many ways. To say "more likely that that money would be better used by governments" requires astonishing levels of naivete.

Good grief.

Not to mention that the IRS is on the phone to offer this service to everyone. If you call them up, they are very helpful. According to them, you have the right to pay as little tax as you legally owe, and they have the responsibility to give you quality service to achieve that.

Let me replace the term government with democracy in your arguement, because the US is a democracy. You believe that the money is better spent by a wealthy individual then by the democratic will of the people. That may be true. But if you believe it then why not replace democracy with plutocracy?

I believe if the government had the money we intended it to have some things would be better. As usual they would waste half or more but there would still be more schools etc.

Social stratification through income inequality leads to problematic first order effects... - skewed political bargaining power - skewed economic bargaining power

Not to mention second order effects: - regulatory capture - debt inflation - reduced aggregate demand - privatization and bureacratization - increased propaganda - "commodification" of spheres poorly handled by markets - lower levels of entrepreneurial activity - less fundamental research from public funding - long waiting times for public services - increased costs and inflation from privatized energy production - less traffic mobility for low incomes from privatised public transit - housing market bubbles - less independent press from reductions in public funding

Or third order effects... - social unrest - lower reproduction rates - higher levels of job competition - recessions - populism and extremism - geopolitical unrest - less political participation

Also, nation states are not income constrained, so stating taxes are used for state income is factually incorrect.

Aren't we all culpable for factory farming to a certain degree? Few of us are prepared to pay more for meat with higher welfare standards. In Europe and North America we eat more meat today than in any time in history. And more cheaply than ever before.

Ending factory farming means eating much less meat and paying more for high welfare standards. How many people in the 'Western world' are prepared to do that? Not enough to make a difference.

I'd add government contracting on wasteful or pork-barrel projects.

> 6. Weapons research

Oh come on, how how naïve do you have to be to think that developing weapons increases violence?

It does not per se increases violence, but surely increases the impact of violence. Compare a revolver with a semi-automatic or a fully automatic rifle: the speed and efficiency in which you can cause harm increases greatly.

As a result of the development of such weapons, incidents have gotten a worse outcome.

Yes, you'll still have incidents without weapon development, but they'll at least not get much worse if availability stays the same.

Revolvers are semi automatic. Breach loader or bolt action might be a better metaphor?

Anyway, we have enough human bodies laying around that the most ineffective weapons can be mobilized to grave consequences. What you need is motivation.

Also, if north americans are squeamish about developing new weaponry, that just means the rest of the world will catch up and surpass them. This creates a sort of power vacuum which would inevitably lead to an invasion or a civil war. I would argue that that's a worse outcome than outright war.

> 10. Tax minimisation for the super rich

This was a good one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com