What's common between them? Well they're two things that the average MBA guy looks for, at least in India. The latter being mostly preferred in singular of course, but then I'm talking about the concept in general and hence the topic is thus.
People have different tastes and passions and it's difficult to formulate a common code for a 'good' job. However I remember a lecture by some Indian entrepreneur gone abroad who said that the best job is at the intersection of three sets- Makes Money, Passion and Skill. A job which is balanced among these three things is according to him an ideal job. Although there are exceptions and he himself was one he admitted, since he had earned enough to move to the intersection of the latter two and money was no longer an issue. For me personally, jobs can to a certain extent be objectively evaluated. Not all jobs can be of course. But the same way I believe there is a certain objectivity to ethics in spite of cultural heterogeneity and so on, I do think that some jobs are better. Passion plays a part and people with a strong passion for something would naturally have a tendency to do something related to that. Apart from the three factors above, there's value addition which I consider as very important. Now the job of a sweeper is not a very high value added job since he does not do much to change the world. Yes, the world would be dirtier without him and if all sweepers decided not to sweep, the world might even come to an end but a practical argument would say that he doesn't add as much value as say a banker and thus his job is worse. I'm not saying that he is a lesser person or that he's doing a bad job. This is just a way of analysing jobs from the value addition point of view. Value addition is not always translated into higher salaries due to inefficiencies in the labour market, but it is a fair approximation to use salaries to measure the amount of value addition. So by this analysis, the Federal Reserve chairman or the president of the US or the CEO of Facebook should be the best jobs in the world right? Well, no. No, because apart from the fact that the three criteria mentioned earlier (as sets) may not be satisfied at all, you may be too lazy to work hard enough for these jobs. These jobs require full time dedication and you may not be able to provide it. Not that you're not capable but you may just not be interested enough or may be, just may be you're too lazy (which can be a good thing as I've written before). Which is fine by the way and again it doesn't make you a lesser person. As long as you bring something unique to the world, your contribution is important and the sweeper's contribution although not as much in value addition terms as the president's, is a contribution nevertheless, and it is particularly important to follow your passion as well since other people may not share the same passion as you and thus may not find working in your profession as satisfying as you do.
A good wife for me is both fun and dependable. Now the following paragraph should seem tasteless to the average reader but I'll go on anyway. Fun implies many things including looks, smartness, intelligence, knowledge, wit as well as talent in any field. Naturally, fun can be the only criterion for someone as well, especially people who are highly fun themselves. High achievers may not look for anything other than these qualities. But I know that I'm not going to be successful forever and thus I would definitely need some support at times. This is measured by the dependability of the woman. Highly dependable women can be trusted; they can empathise with you and they care for you. A right balance of both would be perfect. Now you may ask how I can arbitrarily classify something like good looks or money into fun even though they have nothing to do with the word. To be honest, I actually see both fun and dependability as a single quality. Like light, which dictates whether a room is dark or well lit. Dark and well lit are two states which are governed only by the presence of light. Let us make dependability the only criterion now. People who are highly rich or people who are extremely good looking are generally not dependable in the sense that they may be dissatisfied with you. Of course most of these things are generalisations and won't be true always but as any student of economics (or ay other inexact science) will know, you don't have to be always right and in fact you never will be when talking about things like this- but that doesn't reduce the importance of an opinion that covers the general trend. Now fun and dependability are not the right words to use I realise now and something along the lines of order and chaos would be the right terms. This is true in the case of the economy as well. A certain degree of order is required but without innovation (chaos), the economy becomes stagnant, and well...dies off. A human life also needs a certain balance of both. Childish philosophies like libertarianism preach only chaos and this leads to things like the sub-prime crisis once a while where everything goes hay-wire. I personally cannot stand such a large amount of hay-wireness and thus prefer some order as well. Alan Greenspan's policies, if they were translated into our wife-analysis language would be called 'shallow' since it looks for highly successful, rich and good-looking women much the same way the capitalist system encourages the rich to become richer.
People have different tastes and passions and it's difficult to formulate a common code for a 'good' job. However I remember a lecture by some Indian entrepreneur gone abroad who said that the best job is at the intersection of three sets- Makes Money, Passion and Skill. A job which is balanced among these three things is according to him an ideal job. Although there are exceptions and he himself was one he admitted, since he had earned enough to move to the intersection of the latter two and money was no longer an issue. For me personally, jobs can to a certain extent be objectively evaluated. Not all jobs can be of course. But the same way I believe there is a certain objectivity to ethics in spite of cultural heterogeneity and so on, I do think that some jobs are better. Passion plays a part and people with a strong passion for something would naturally have a tendency to do something related to that. Apart from the three factors above, there's value addition which I consider as very important. Now the job of a sweeper is not a very high value added job since he does not do much to change the world. Yes, the world would be dirtier without him and if all sweepers decided not to sweep, the world might even come to an end but a practical argument would say that he doesn't add as much value as say a banker and thus his job is worse. I'm not saying that he is a lesser person or that he's doing a bad job. This is just a way of analysing jobs from the value addition point of view. Value addition is not always translated into higher salaries due to inefficiencies in the labour market, but it is a fair approximation to use salaries to measure the amount of value addition. So by this analysis, the Federal Reserve chairman or the president of the US or the CEO of Facebook should be the best jobs in the world right? Well, no. No, because apart from the fact that the three criteria mentioned earlier (as sets) may not be satisfied at all, you may be too lazy to work hard enough for these jobs. These jobs require full time dedication and you may not be able to provide it. Not that you're not capable but you may just not be interested enough or may be, just may be you're too lazy (which can be a good thing as I've written before). Which is fine by the way and again it doesn't make you a lesser person. As long as you bring something unique to the world, your contribution is important and the sweeper's contribution although not as much in value addition terms as the president's, is a contribution nevertheless, and it is particularly important to follow your passion as well since other people may not share the same passion as you and thus may not find working in your profession as satisfying as you do.
A good wife for me is both fun and dependable. Now the following paragraph should seem tasteless to the average reader but I'll go on anyway. Fun implies many things including looks, smartness, intelligence, knowledge, wit as well as talent in any field. Naturally, fun can be the only criterion for someone as well, especially people who are highly fun themselves. High achievers may not look for anything other than these qualities. But I know that I'm not going to be successful forever and thus I would definitely need some support at times. This is measured by the dependability of the woman. Highly dependable women can be trusted; they can empathise with you and they care for you. A right balance of both would be perfect. Now you may ask how I can arbitrarily classify something like good looks or money into fun even though they have nothing to do with the word. To be honest, I actually see both fun and dependability as a single quality. Like light, which dictates whether a room is dark or well lit. Dark and well lit are two states which are governed only by the presence of light. Let us make dependability the only criterion now. People who are highly rich or people who are extremely good looking are generally not dependable in the sense that they may be dissatisfied with you. Of course most of these things are generalisations and won't be true always but as any student of economics (or ay other inexact science) will know, you don't have to be always right and in fact you never will be when talking about things like this- but that doesn't reduce the importance of an opinion that covers the general trend. Now fun and dependability are not the right words to use I realise now and something along the lines of order and chaos would be the right terms. This is true in the case of the economy as well. A certain degree of order is required but without innovation (chaos), the economy becomes stagnant, and well...dies off. A human life also needs a certain balance of both. Childish philosophies like libertarianism preach only chaos and this leads to things like the sub-prime crisis once a while where everything goes hay-wire. I personally cannot stand such a large amount of hay-wireness and thus prefer some order as well. Alan Greenspan's policies, if they were translated into our wife-analysis language would be called 'shallow' since it looks for highly successful, rich and good-looking women much the same way the capitalist system encourages the rich to become richer.
No comments:
Post a Comment