I think all sorts of people make their livings in ways that contribute nothing productive to society, and look down on them for it. I find it hard to imagine that maybe half or more of the people around me also think the same thing and look down the same way.
At the same time, I also see my conception of what contributes and doesn’t contribute get changed around frequently. This has me catching myself and feeling foolish and ashamed about my judgements.
One thing seems clear - the op is asking about people who contribute nothing productive specifically in the way they make their living, and people who contribute by spending their income can still be contributing nothing in the making of it.
Here’s an example of a mystery: all sorts of people contribute aesthetic works to society. Paintings, sculpture, dance, music, cosmetics and fashion are examples. I range considerably here. Music seems to tickle some kind of internal instinct, maybe something we evolved as a tool in tribal cohesiveness or something like that. So it always seems like a productive contribution, because it turns directly into happiness, and what could possibly be more productive than that instant gift? Fashion seems to define the other end of the spectrum, because every year they announce they have had everything wrong until now and have finally gotten it right, and people actually look forward to this. So it always seems like an utterly unproductive contribution. My border drifts around between these two extremes.
So, if I can’t even keep straight what is productive in my own little view, it seems impossible for any definitive metric to do so in a way that speaks for society. I give up.
Well, maybe not for fashion, that one still seems to have some special role to play…
If the professional blackjack player doesn’t contribute anything, what does the casino contribute? The casino is in exactly the same position as the pro BJ player–grind out that tiny house edge against a hundred players. What have they contributed except a venue for gambling, and why is that more productive than the card-counter?
This is true - and I’m not trying to refer to poker as a spectator sport when I make the (poor) analogies. I was thinking more in terms of… people spend a lot of money on football, whether it be tickets, watching advertising, merchandise, etc. The money all comes from people’s entertainment spending.
In a not-quite-analogous way, there’s a lot of money in the poker economy from people who are willing to spend it for the entertainment. Only in this case the competition itself is the entertainment, not the spectatorship of the competition. But you still have money funneled into an entertainment expense which then goes to the most skilled people of that competition. It’s a loose analogy but there’s some connection there.
That’s true. I was thinking more of 1 on 1 stuff - if some idiot gives a stripper $100 to grind on his crotch for a while, has anything productive happened? It’s an unproductive entertainment expense that provides the primary income for someone.
Forget poker players; let’s suppose there were people with the magic ability to consistently eke out a small living from slots. Casinos would prefer that such people not play the slot machines, but there’s no way to identify such people except by waiting for them to begin to accumulate anomalously long winning streaks, and so casinos don’t bother actually trying to bar them upfront. These people are the prototypes of those who make their winning in a way which doesn’t “contribute anything” to anyone else, right? Would they serve fine as an example of what the OP wants to discuss?
People want me to clarify what I mean by productive, so let me try:
Someone is making their living in a productive manner if they are providing (or contributing to the provision of) a product or service that is in demand, and fulfills either a want or a need, of at least one other member of society.
I’d argue it’s just as productive as someone who had paid $100 for a concert ticket, or to get some other form of entertainment. The person spending the money wants some entertainment, probably hoping to derive some enjoyment or happiness, so is paying someone to provide it.
Whether you’re paying to see a stripper or a rock band, you’re paying to get a service in the form of entertainment. So to me, these don’t count as examples of what I am trying to describe in my OP.
Who says someone has to live in away you find productive? It’s a free country. Blackjack guy isn’t breaking any laws or harming anyone. He has no obligation to do more.
A poker player, even if not televised, is still providing entertainment, and to precisely the people who are paying for it: The other players. Most people don’t make money playing poker, but they still do it because they like it. The pro poker player at the table is providing a service for the other entertainers by entertaining them, and the other players are paying the pro for that service.
As a former poker dealer, I’d say they contributed mightily to society, at least my little portion of it. They allowed me to work part time, get full time wages, have a schedule that allowed us to never need daycare for our child.
Granted, it took a bunch of 'em, but there was a bunch of us too. I’m extraordinarily thankful to the players I dealt to. Oh, also, the company I worked for were self-insured, and that translated to me getting excellent benefits during my high risk pregnancy, which came in quite handy during the pregnancy, the pre-mature birth and the every other day pediatrician visits my daughter required.
Fine. Pretend I’m a very successful slot player. I buy things, support a family, pay taxes, and contribute in a million different ways to the functioning of the economy.
I am assuming people understand that 99.9% of people who are deriving a legal income are doing it in such a way that they are making a meaningful contribution to society: scrubbing toilets, stocking shelves, driving cabs, cooking food, fighting fires, healing the sick, researching cures, making things safer, providing shelter, doing taxes, writing software, mowing lawns, fixing leaks… etc etc etc. Some people even stay at home and look after the next generation of workers who are currently too young to look after themselves, allowing a spouse to go out and earn a living by contributing something to society.
But what about the guy who makes his living by contributing nothing to society, such as a professional blackjack player, or a guy who has figured out a tricky way to play the slots that gives him a small edge? Are these people to be considered decent, upstanding and meaningful contributors to society?
Well, it’s just like people who live off an inheritance. They didn’t necessarily contribute anything to anyone in exchange for that money, but I wouldn’t consider that to make them indecent or whatever. I recognize no moral imperative to work; if you can get away without it, more power to you.
The tricky questions are like, what if people pay you because of some agreement which, if they knew more about you and your ability to exploit it, they would rather not strike with you, but it isn’t quite a cause of fraud or anything either… (e.g., magical slot-player)
I have thought about this quite a bit, as well. I make my living as a trader. From what I’ve read, the difference between gambling and trading is the source of risk. In gambling, risk is created for the sake of risk. In financial markets risk already exists, and speculators “get paid” for assuming risk. Joe the farmer might want to hedge the risk of cattle price fluctuations, so he sells futures to a speculator on the Chicago Board of Trade. Or Mack the plumber might want to cash out of his IRA, so he sells his stocks to a speculator on the New York Stock Exchange. Joe and Mack no longer hold risk; the speculators now have it. In theory, the speculators contribute by providing liquidity to the markets.
In my head, it makes sense. But still, there something not all that satisfying about being on my death bed thinking, “Good work, Trom. You really added some great liquidity to the market.” I welcome any thoughts/comments.
Sorry to possibly derail the thread from the poker/blackjack example. I’ll be following this thread with interest.
Why should how I make ends meet be the basis for how I am judged as a productive or contributing member of society? Maybe I contribute other ways. You can’t tell. Any judgment based strictly on “job” is a fool’s game at best.
