Comments on: Profit vs. bliss

By: steve

steve — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:41:28 +0000

It is true that there is nothing in traditional economic theory that rules out producers’ preferences in explaining resource allocation. Adam Smith remarked on the need to pay executioners a wage premium because of the anti-bliss associated with the job (today we call this a “compensating differential”). A lot of the “What Color is Your Parachute” thinking was also based on the idea that you will be more competent doing something you like than something you loathe, so that opprotunity and expression may be correlated.

It is also true, however, that most specific thinking in economics about real-world problems has been predicated on the belief that the worker’s intrinsic motivations (or “amenity value” or “idiosyncratic preferences” or some other term) are small enough to be safely ignored. Normally, theorists have conceived of producers as motivated by a love of money and an aversion to effort and risk. These motivations may in turn drive motives for reputation and status.

I think Grant is right that this working assumption (never theoretically grounded) is becoming less tenable over time. Intrinsic motivations of producers are becoming a larger part of the story as a) we become wealthier, b) economic growth is driven more by “creative” innovations in the domain of style, aesthetics, meaning generation and the like, and c) more people earn their living in non-routine activities in general. Close-up studies of technological innovation, for instance, suggest that scientists’ and engineers’ motivations to pursue particular avenues exert a bigger distorting influence on project outcomes than do preferences for leisure or money.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:48:34 +0000

“Self-interest, not self-expression”? But Grant…self-expression _is_ an interest. And if enough people care about it enough, markets will inevitably evolve to serve it. As you appear to be finding. There is no contradiction there.

Charu: If it’s “emotionally unsatisfying” then by definition it isn’t “bliss”. But just because a given vocation would be emotionally unsatisfying to _you_ doesn’t necessarily mean it’d be emotionally unsatisfying to _everybody_. (The inverse is also true…I suspect that the kinds of things which would satisfy you emotionally would drive me very quickly insane. It’s a big world…lots of room for all kinds.)

By: Charu

Charu — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:26:40 +0000

Grant, just a thought – is it possible to entirely separate bliss and profit (or in this case pure economics) – what I am saying has to do with the way you have conceived of bliss here – a higher order (maybe emotional) need?. take this for instance – “If they have no choice, they will take any job on offer, bliss be damned”. what about an emotionally unsatisfying but well-paying job? That could be bliss for some!

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:39:11 +0000

But, doesn’t the Long Tail exist because of bliss pursuit? Lithuanian folk dance afficionados certainly don’t put out CDs because of broad market opportunities but out of passion, no? What Anderson argues, I think, is that Amazon/eBay/the Net make it possible for like-passioned consumers (no matter how small in number) to find and buy those CDs. I’d wager than many of the purported half-million or more people making a living via eBay-connected businesses would describe themselves as finding a way to transform things they enjoy doing (which used to be quaintly called, “hobbies”) into revenue producers. I believe today’s level of plentitude allows for greater convergence between opportunistic and expressive economies.

But then, I’m from the Bronx, and I always have problems thinking clearly!

By: linkage

linkage — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:20:28 +0000

http://www.abstractdynamics.org/linkage/archives/006147.html

This Blog Sits at the: Profit vs. bliss…