For CdM: Bullshit jobs

[Malthus]

The entire C-suite of a modern business is a cost center.  They don't produce anything.  They "manage" "strategize," "coordinate," etc.
I think Berkut is correct in his taxonomy.  I am not convinced as to the significance though.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

I guess Minsky and I are interchangeable Jewish lawyers? 

Point here is, if you guys don't think the distinction "is significant" in any way, why are you making such a big fuss and deal about it? Are you really that fond of arguing over ... nothing?

To my mind, it surely raises the question of why Berk sought fit to make the argument.

[CountDeMoney]

This argument needs more grumbler.

[Malthus]

Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect. 

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Okay, then I'll add some substance to my jeering. 

Lawyers do not guard against the hazards created by other lawyers. They guard against the hazards created by other people, such as those whom the client is doing business with either voluntarily (as in contracts) or involuntarily (as in someone doing them an injury).

The notion that these hazards are dreamed up by lawyers and would not exist except for lawyers is, quite simply, bullshit that could only appeal to the childish mind who thinks that human nature is all fluffy kittens and unicorns farting rainbows. 

[Berkut]

The entire C-suite of a modern business is a cost center.  They don't produce anything.  They "manage" "strategize," "coordinate," etc.
I think Berkut is correct in his taxonomy.  I am not convinced as to the significance though.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

I guess Minsky and I are interchangeable Jewish lawyers? 

Point here is, if you guys don't think the distinction "is significant" in any way, why are you making such a big fuss and deal about it? Are you really that fond of arguing over ... nothing?

To my mind, it surely raises the question of why Berk sought fit to make the argument.

You aren't reading my posts. You are just reading the posts you imagine me making.

The entire jist of my argument, if you take two seconds to actually read what I've written in total instead of trying to pick out bits and pieces to get all offended about, is to AGREE that the distinction in the context it is being used by the OP is bullshit.

I agree that it is beyond bizarre that anyone would be so sensitive about their position that pointing out that their business is not part of the production part of a business would result in them getting all butt hurt and going on for pages about how nobody understands what they do (really, we do) and if they did, we would all agree that they are really super awesomely important (no, we probably won't).

But hey, it's Languish, so it isn't surprising.

[Berkut]

Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect. 

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Okay, then I'll add some substance to my jeering. 

Lawyers do not guard against the hazards created by other lawyers. They guard against the hazards created by other people, such as those whom the client is doing business with either voluntarily (as in contracts) or involuntarily (as in someone doing them an injury).

The notion that these hazards are dreamed up by lawyers and would not exist except for lawyers is, quite simply, bullshit that could only appeal to the childish mind who thinks that human nature is all fluffy kittens and unicorns farting rainbows. 

The notion that the lawyers, all 6 bajillion of them, do not contribute to the need for more lawyers, is so cutely naive that I don't even believe that you believe it.

Fallacy of over simplification.

[Malthus]

The entire C-suite of a modern business is a cost center.  They don't produce anything.  They "manage" "strategize," "coordinate," etc.
I think Berkut is correct in his taxonomy.  I am not convinced as to the significance though.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

I guess Minsky and I are interchangeable Jewish lawyers? 

Point here is, if you guys don't think the distinction "is significant" in any way, why are you making such a big fuss and deal about it? Are you really that fond of arguing over ... nothing?

To my mind, it surely raises the question of why Berk sought fit to make the argument.

You aren't reading my posts. You are just reading the posts you imagine me making.

The entire jist of my argument, if you take two seconds to actually read what I've written in total instead of trying to pick out bits and pieces to get all offended about, is to AGREE that the distinction in the context it is being used by the OP is bullshit.

I agree that it is beyond bizarre that anyone would be so sensitive about their position that pointing out that their business is not part of the production part of a business would result in them getting all butt hurt and going on for pages about how nobody understands what they do (really, we do) and if they did, we would all agree that they are really super awesomely important (no, we probably won't).

But hey, it's Languish, so it isn't surprising.

So I take it that someone other than Berkut wrote this? 

They are like a security guardat Wal-mart, at best. A necessary evil, but still just a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line. Ideally, you would not need them at all, and would be better off if your business model could simply get rid of them altogether while avoiding the negative effects of doing so.

Now your position is that nope, no, really, the distinction between production and non-production has no significance in any way ?

Colour me confused as to WTF your point is. How does your present position jibe with saying they are a "necessary evil",  "a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line", and something you would be "better off ... getting rid of altogether"?

I say, have the courage of your convictions. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Your transaction stripped of its non-essentials is still Steam freely offering a game for sale and you freely accepting the offer.  The fact that the transaction was performed over the computer doesn't change that.

But Steam is not "freely offering a game for sale".  It is providing an electronic distribution service to a customer under specified terms and conditions on the one hand, and another distribution service to the game company also under specified (but different) terms and conditions.  And what is being sold is not a game but a software license.

The point is for all this to work, there has to be a lot going on behind the scenes.  I am not talking about the technological capabilities of the computer.  I am talking about having a system of well-tested rules and enforcement mechanisms in place such that all parties to these transactions can act with confidence that they will get what they are transacting for and won't get ripped off.  And a culture that that has become so accilimated to those norms that 99.99% of the time, everything will go smoothly -- because if more than a minute proportion of transactions actually required the invocation of formal enforcement mechanisms, the system would collapse.

These are not non-essentials.  They ARE the essentials, they are what it means to have a "market".  Absent that, the Steam customer would not only have to read very carefully all the fine print of the terms and conditions, he would have to do his own due diligence into the bona fides of the company and its ability and willingness to make good on its obligation, and have on retainer some beefy guys named Vinny in case things went awry.  Which means it wouldn't happen at all.

The potential loss of a quasi-public provider of credit is exactly the same as it was in the days before deposit insurance: their entire stake. 

What stake?  Most of the equity is dumped onto the public, either directly or through intermediaries like pension funds.  The only thing managers and directors stand to lose is the value of whatever restricted stock awards that haven't vested or where the sale window hasn't opened.   

[Eddie Teach]

The Wal-Mart guard isn't actively destroying society.

[Berkut]

My position is completely consistent with those comments. But keep cherry picking out the pieces so you can feel justifiably outraged that someone might suggest your job is just like so many other jobs, and not super duper special.

I never said it "had not significance in any way", counselor. I said it wasn't significant in the manner the OP claimed it was, and now in the manner you are insisting that it must be, so you can feel all sad and unappreciated.

It jibes because cost cetners in general are "necessary evils" that "ideally you would not need them at all". The comment about the bottom line is actually not really accurate as stated, since cost centers do add to the bottom line, just not directly (or at least, hopefully they do).

If you could come up with a way to make sure people don't steal your product, you could get rid of security guards and make more money since they are a cost. Hence they are a "necessary evil". The same is true of lawyers. I know that hurts you, and makes you sad, but that is just the definition of what a cost of business is. Why this makes you all raging and emo is really quite amusing. Your ego is both over inflated and mighty tender at the same time.

I am perfectly ok with the FACT that from the perspective of my clients, I am a cost to them, and if they could come up with a way to originate loans without the need for software that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would be better off, they would make more money. Of course, I also know that the reality is that we actually save them piles of cash, so that is largely theoretical. But my ego is hardly tied up in recognizing that there is such a distinction, that I fall on a particular side of the distinction or that in theory, my job is a necessary evil. All from the perspective of the client, of course - from the perspective of the company *I* work for, I am very much at the pointy end of the profit center stick.

The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower. I had no idea comparing them to a security guard would strike such a nerve.

[CountDeMoney]

The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower.

Actually, the most interesting part is watching the lawyers dissect the discussion with all the proficiency of, well, lawyers.

[Berkut]

The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower.

Actually, the most interesting part is watching the lawyers dissect the discussion with all the proficiency of, well, lawyers.

Their powers can be used for good or evil.

At least in theory.

[crazy canuck]

This argument needs more grumbler.

Naw, Berkut has now admitted he is arguing over nothing so he is an adequate stand in.

[CountDeMoney]

This argument needs more grumbler.

Naw, Berkut has now admitted he is arguing over nothing so he is an adequate stand in.

I dunno...while Hurricane Berkut often has a tendency to batter a thread shoreline with repeated high-intensity posts whenever it makes landfall, as far as this thread is concerned, discussing shit with you lawyer types is the effective equivalent of talking to a therapist about not being depressed only to be told you're in denial.

[crazy canuck]

This argument needs more grumbler.

Naw, Berkut has now admitted he is arguing over nothing so he is an adequate stand in.

I dunno...while Hurricane Berkut often has a tendency to batter a thread shoreline with repeated high-intensity posts whenever it makes landfall, as far as this thread is concerned, discussing shit with you lawyer types is the effective equivalent of talking to a therapist about not being depressed only to be told you're in denial.

[Malthus]

My position is completely consistent with those comments. But keep cherry picking out the pieces so you can feel justifiably outraged that someone might suggest your job is just like so many other jobs, and not super duper special.

I never said it "had not significance in any way", counselor. I said it wasn't significant in the manner the OP claimed it was, and now in the manner you are insisting that it must be, so you can feel all sad and unappreciated.

It jibes because cost cetners in general are "necessary evils" that "ideally you would not need them at all". The comment about the bottom line is actually not really accurate as stated, since cost centers do add to the bottom line, just not directly (or at least, hopefully they do).

If you could come up with a way to make sure people don't steal your product, you could get rid of security guards and make more money since they are a cost. Hence they are a "necessary evil". The same is true of lawyers. I know that hurts you, and makes you sad, but that is just the definition of what a cost of business is. Why this makes you all raging and emo is really quite amusing. Your ego is both over inflated and mighty tender at the same time.

I am perfectly ok with the FACT that from the perspective of my clients, I am a cost to them, and if they could come up with a way to originate loans without the need for software that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would be better off, they would make more money. Of course, I also know that the reality is that we actually save them piles of cash, so that is largely theoretical. But my ego is hardly tied up in recognizing that there is such a distinction, that I fall on a particular side of the distinction or that in theory, my job is a necessary evil. All from the perspective of the client, of course - from the perspective of the company *I* work for, I am very much at the pointy end of the profit center stick.

The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower. I had no idea comparing them to a security guard would strike such a nerve.

The most interesting part of this debate is to watch you tie yourself into knots trying to explain why you are debating over what you have admitted to be nothing. 

But please, keep beating that drum over how those simply asking you WTF you are going on about are "emo" for having the temerity to ask what you mean. No doubt if you *say* it enough times, it will become true.