Try being a consultant who advises lawyers on gathering financial and other information to defend/prosecute investment banks, large companies and so on. Yes, you are providing a service to society in that it helps take the Bernie Maddoffs off the streets. OTOH, it felt a bit more satisfying actually helping real companies actually run more efficiently.
Assuming I have figuredo out a way to game the system for slots, I spend 8-9 hours a day pulling a lever, and leave with just enough money to make it better than flipping burgers.
I pay taxes (we are assuming I’m honest) on my winnings, at a higher rate than the casino.
I am that magical thing a “winner”, whose very existence serves as walking talking advertising for the casino.
I may not be a cog in a machine that spits out teddy bears or something, but I am paying taxes (contributing to society) and helping the casino (in some small measure). Plus, by being there, I am helping to keep cocktail waitresses and slot machine mechanics employed.
And I am better than a drug dealer, in that I am above board, and what I am doing is not killing anyone.
But the base problem with this question is you have an arbitrary and exclusionary idea of what a “contributing member” of society is.
Anything anyone can legally do for money is somewhat productive to society. The only reason that a Casino will offer a beatable game is the promotion opportunities; they would have no shortage of customers even if there weren’t games with negative house edges. Casinos mainly exist as entertainment and so the owners of the casino are clearly contributing to society and thus anyone contributing to the casino’s well-being contributes to society.
Anyone who makes their money solely by trading on the financial markets comes by profits in two general ways: trading risk or exploiting inefficiencies. In both cases, people make free market transactions and you win by the old maxim of “buying low and selling high” on a large enough scale.
There is a way to obtain money/goods in a society without being productive: charity. But in general it’s still a free market transaction where people weigh the cost of charity against something internal. There’s also an easy way to make your living without benefiting society: remove yourself from it completely and live off land no one else has title too.
There are no “shoulds” when it comes to how you feel about someone. Either you disapprove or you don’t. But why look down on someone if you have a choce about how you feel? And certainly don’t just go with what society feels!
Who said that everyone has an obligation to be productive? That may be important to one person but not another.
“They also serve who only stand and wait.” – Milton
Professional poker plays provide entertainment for amateur poker players to play against. Poker players enter into such agreements voluntarily so you could argue about whether their decision is rational or not but not that it was a fair economic exchange.
You know who really doesn’t provide value? Marketers. Coke spends $100M to convince 1,000,000 people to drink Coke over Pepsi and Pepsi spends $100M to convince 1,000,000 to drink Pepsi over Coke. What do you have in the end? The exact same number of people drinking each beverage and $200M worth of resources completely consumed.
Ah, but where did those resources go? Did the executives simply burn $200 million in hundred-dollar bills? No, they spent it, which gave employment to countless cameramen, craft services people, drivers, pollsters, etc., each of which then proceeded to spend, pay taxes, etc.
Even if they did just burn the money, it would provide employment for the people at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing who had to print replacement money (along with the people at the company that makes the paper for money, the drivers of the armored cars, etc.).
[IMHO]
There are people who make their living directly by the blessings rained down to them by God, these people lead generally ‘blessed’ lives, and have access to things and people most people don’t. This is a condition of their birth, the ‘quarter’ of the world that they are born into, one of 4 kingdoms of the earth spoke of in scriptures. Then are those who are born of the lowest one, where the blessings of God rarely reach as they do in the above one. In the Gospels I believe that John was in the upper kingdom, and had his needs met by God, he being a fisherman, made his living by what God had provided. Mathew OTOH was IMHO in the lowest kingdom, and could only make a living by feeding off of other people’s work, as he worked as a tax collector.
It is very difficult to break out of a kingdom, especially to move up, and feeding off of others, not just not contributing to society, but detracting from it, is the only option for some people.
These 4 quarters (kingdoms) of the world exists throughout all people but sometimes is made more obvious, such as the cast system in India or the system of apartheid, or the slavery issue that was out in the open till the US civil war, now still exists but is hidden.
So should you look down upon people making a living the only way they know how, the only way that has ever worked for them? We are all trying to figure out our place in the world, why things work for some and not others and doing what we think we need to do to survive.
[/IMHO]
Card counters still lose hands. It is not foolproof, it only enables you to make better betting choices. You only know what cards are left not the order they may come up in. Aside from that, the winners still spend their money, thus contributing to society.
First of all, making money long term off the slots is mathematically unlikely. Ditto for blackjack unless you count at a table using a single deck or something. Assuming the slot player doesn’t have some sort of magical powers, his presence will help the casino tighten up its slot programming and help the shareholders. By winning he might also attract other slots players, which might make more for the casino than they lose to him.
But the problem with these examples is that a productive person gets paid because he produces more benefit from his job than he takes out. The poker player does by giving other poker players someone to play against. The slots player has no such benefit, which is why casinos can get away with setting the odds on the machines such that he will be paying rental on the machine in the long run.
Those who contribute to society can be identified by the fact that society pays them. So I think you are going to have a hard time finding someone who makes a living without contributing in some sense - unless it is by fraud or theft.
I’m very surprised at the number of people who didn’t permit my question, insisting that professional blackjack players who grind out a small edge against the casino are no different to the guy who stocks shelves at a supermarket. One of these people is making society a tangibly better place, and doing his bit to increase the standard of living in the society he is in by the way he makes his living. The other is not.
Both the shelf stocker and the gambler obviously spend the money they earn, so defending the gambler’s contribution to society by pointing out that he spends his money is a strange answer to me.
Finally, people who defend the gambler by saying “who says he has to contribute to society in the manner you expect?”. Do you feel that people can break laws and use the same defence? Do you feel as though able-bodied people can live off welfare and use the same defence?
Why?
We already have impulses to look down on people based on what they believe, the color of their skin or shape of their facial features, the way they speak, what foods they like, their preferred entertainment, and dozens of other arbitrary values. Do we really need one more reason to find ways to scorn other people?
Aside from the debate already in progress over the details of various occupations, I am curious about the fundamental question of the OP: what is the purpose or benefit of identifying more criteria to feel superior to other people?
Way to move the goalposts there, Zippy. Again, why does someone have to have a “productive” occupation for you to consider them “not to be looked down upon?” How’s the view from up there on your Peak of Perfectness? What does breaking the law have to do with your original question?
Do retirees fall under “non-productive” people? A classic retiree does not work, instead living off of their savings, pension plan, government entitlements, friends, family, etc.
Does that make them better or worse then someone that puts in 40hrs a week doing something that I don’t see the social benefit of?
This OP reminds me of a story told by Paquito D’Rivera, the Cuban sax player. Shortly after the revolution in Cuba Paquito’s band played for Che Guevara and other comandantes, and after the set the musicians went around shaking hands and talking with them.
According to Paquito, Guevara asked ‘And what do you do?’, to which he replied ‘I play saxophone’. Guevara then told him ‘No, that’s not a job, what do you do that’s productive?’
I don’t remember what Paquito said he responded, but I do remember what he describes thinking. He says he left that conversation thinking ‘That son of a bitch doesn’t think that music is work!’
How do you feel about people who make their money by gaming the welfare system? I take it you don’t look down on these people, then?
Answer tom’s question first. Why do you need the support and approval of random people on the internet to find another reason to regard yourself as superior in some fashion to another human being?
If you were shipwrecked on an island with a group of about 20 people, would you look equally favourably upon the one or two able-bodied people that refuse to contribute productively to the quasi-society who want to find a way home? Or have adequate shelter? And food? Or if the 18 others were being “productive enough”, you’d have no problem with the other two who just coasting along?
You actually took the time to write such a nonsense question?
Whilst in retirement they might fall under “non-productive” in an economic sense, but I don’t believe society should look down on retirees that have worked hard for their bit, and if you honestly believe this is anywhere near the question I am asking…
No idea why my posts would remind you of that story, given that I have gone to painful lengths to specifically point out that I regard music as a valid form of work.