Are there any books which mount a learned critique of modern service economies? I think a lot of people have a healthy suspicion of economic activities which do not produce any tangible results but they are drowned by the voices of self-appointed experts who tell us that everything is fine and that shipping all industrial jobs to China or Mexico is a good thing. Also I'd be interested in books which look at post-industrial service economies from a Marxist perspective. I understand that Marx wrote his books when industrial factory capitalism was still regnant and I'm curious what modifications more recent Marxist writers have made to account for the rise of the third sector
>>23817033Bullshit jobs: A theory
maybe try reading something written by a real economist not some dope in the english department.
>>23817061>real economistoxymoron
>>23817033Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. VanceOne-Dimentional Man by Herbert MarcuseThe Precariat: A New Dangerous Class by Guy StandingPost-Industrial Society by Daniel Bell>>23817061Economics is a pseudoscience, I don't see how OP would profit from reading this drivel
>>23817033Not fully on this topic but check out Hinterlands by NeelJust skip his leftcom rants
Michael Hudson and his critique of the US becoming an almost purely FIRE ( Finance, Insurance ,Real State) economy.
>UGH I just LOVE the hustle and bustle of factory. Damn I wish I worked 10 hours a day making cars just like my grandpa. That's what REAL men who like...drink BEER and watch SPORTS did back in the day. FUCK Bill Clinton
>>23817114Another abhorrent urb*n dweller post
>>23817120>Wow I live in the suburbs I'm a REAL man of the earth not a PUSSY like those effete urban liberals
>>23817124I'm not even American, I live in a small town in a shithole Eastern European country. I just hate urb*nites
>>23817133Yet you're indistinguishable some wholesome chungus suburban North Carolinan. Congratulations.
>>23817033>>23817120If you think this chart is bad you're a retard who doesn't understand economics or Engel's law.
>>23817080>>23817086>marxist calling others pseudoscienceheh, humorous cope
>>23817033I don't get why people post this graph as some call for a RETVRN to the "industrial economy". Industry is basically unchanged since 1970 here. It's agriculture that went down
>>23817148Because they're Marxist retards and see >>23817138
>>23817145>marxistWhat are talking about?
>>23817114I used to be like this and still kind of am
>>23817133Based Pol Pot poster
>>23817138>muh law!Why are econtards so obsessed with their pathetic LARPing as physicists? Most of you guys can't even solve 2nd order Diff Eqs, I've encountered many econ grads and they were all incredibly retarded without exception. A mediocre physicist is worth more than a "genius" economist. Yes, we know, you're smarter and better at math than those cranky sociologists and anthropologists, not that it counts for much. None of the things you do justify the kind of money that you earn. You're seething in a thread devoted to anti-service and anti-finance literature recommendations because you're AFRAID that actually productive people will see through your econoscam and burst your financial sector bubble that's been growing for far too long. There can be no quantitative laws in economics because there are no constants and fixtures in social life, the intelligent among you like Mises admitted as much and dropped the scientist LARP
>>23817148It’s those damn urbanites
>>23817213>>23817120the internet went really downhill since hillbillies got internet connections
>>23817086Most of social science is pseudoscience. There are just way to many variables to isolate anything with anywhere close to enough certainty. It's good for rules of thumb but not much else. That's why the managerial class love it. You can justify your policy with any handpicked study you want and then tell the plebs to listen to the experts. It's like some present day Divine Right of Kings except the god is secular.
>>23817228There is no science / pseudo-science distinction in the first place. Either everything is science or nothing is.
>>23817232Science is whatever confirms my viewsPseudoscience is whatever conflicts with my views Simple as
>>23817234You got it, mate! Keep up the basedness!
>>23817234Yes
>>23817234your face while posting this
>>23817061Every economist in history has been wrong
>>23817249Just like communism was a failure whenever applied but that won't stop commies like you from trying
>>23817269Have you considered that both communism and economics could be shit?
>>23817223Most anti urban posters are suburban Timmies or I guess in this case Timoslaviks. It’s not even actual redneck ruralites
>>23817286Timoslav here. My town has a few thousand inhabitants and a candy factory as the only employer other than government institutions like a public school etc. I don't know in what universe we'd be considered less rural than Appalachian rednecks
>>23817293>my town has a few thousand inhabitantsfilthy urbanite
>>23817086>>23817086>The Precariat: A New Dangerous Class>Guy Standing argues that this class is producing instabilities in society. Although it would be wrong to characterise members of the Precariat as victims, many are frustrated and angry. The Precariat is dangerous because it is internally divided, leading to the villainisation of migrants and other vulnerable groups. Lacking agency, its members may be susceptible to the siren calls of political extremism.In other words, yet another hopelessly foolish sociology that misses the real issue entirely. Real NYT-reader shit. Another clever book by someone who can't think.
>>23817362Who cares? Let them read the slop, it is not like they would have read something better in the first place.
>>23817362In the book he chastises traditional labor unionism for being anti-immigration and pro-protectionism. It's another slop for NPCs who want to think they're making a difference
>>23817373Everybody is a NPC except me.
>>23817362Most tenured scholars think anything that doesn’t turn everyone trans is political extremism
>>23817061Like this?
>'Can I get a book that conforms exactly to the belief I want to hold' thread>It's full of faggots arguing without recommending books and declaring anyone who disagrees with them to be retardedI'm beginning to think none of you know what the fuck you're talking about
>>23817212Not reading all that.Learn economics, faggot. No one cares what a nobody like you thinks.
Unironically it’s National Socialist economics
>>23817043bullshit jobs is a great example of a book everyone likes but no one has actually readthe title seems to be pointing to an obviously real phenomenon, but then if you actually open up the book graeber's mostly talking about different stuff which he's completely wrong about.
>>23817033Hmmmm a lot of scholarly work on the sibject but I can't think of any specific books. Might want to check out Chuang and their recommendations since they right a lot about the transition to a service-sector economy in China: https://chuangcn.org/
>>23817232Are you fucking stupid? Of course there is.There are a million hucksters claiming science while having nothing.Social sciences are as soft as they come, and will be for all time, until someone has the balls to run humans from birth 'till death in controlled situations.
>>23819753oh really? I only saw his talk about it couldn't figure it out
>>23819412>Learn economics,which economic school though?
>>23817033>Are there any books which mount a learned critique of modern service economies?Look into stuff trying to explain/measure what "productivity" is. You'll notice productivity growth is low in service sector.> I think a lot of people have a healthy suspicion of economic activities which do not produce any tangible results but they are drowned by the voices of self-appointed experts who tell us that everything is fine and that shipping all industrial jobs to China or Mexico is a good thing.You're getting into something different there. Most retards promoting protectionism aren't actually thinking in terms of shrinking the service sector per se, they think they can expand industrial production without shrinking restaurants or hairdressers or financial engineers or whatever.>Also I'd be interested in books which look at post-industrial service economies from a Marxist perspective. That graph you're posting is in monetary terms, it's saying the $ value of services in the economy has grown relative to everything else. Marx's central claim was that industrial capitalism would generate less surplus value (i.e. tendency of the rate of profit to diminish) and therefor capitalism would stop working in some sense and socialism would replace it.Obviously highly industrial economies are very "statist" in some sense. When governments get out of the way entrepreneurs find ways to make bigger returns outside the industrial sector today it seems. Can you grow industry without regulating finance? People like Trump think so and all you need to do is make imports more expensive. That's the entire right populist perspective, more import controls and less regulation will result in more people working but it's questionable since all recent history shows that the non-industrial sector can grow faster and finance more "expensive" imports fine.
The hatred of service jobs is by dysgenic leftists.
>>23820801>The hatred of service jobs is by dysgenic leftists.The new meme is cons are for blue collar interests and you won't have to work at mcdonalds because big daddy will give you a better job being hoarded by Chinamen right now
>>23817399Yeah, absolutely. Some of the most common NPCs are inner-city cosmopolitans who outwardly larp as caring for the "working class", while in the same breath chastising them for merely complaining about the foreign scab labour that's undercutting them with taxpayer subsidization, through jobs programs that are allocated specifically to them and not advertised to the public, while living in subsidized housing, subsidized healthcare, etc.Their opinions are unethical, both if you care about the wellbeing of your countrymen, and for their inherent dishonesty in presentation, but I'd respect them far more as people if they simply dropped the pretense. Of course that would imply they're capable of some critical self reflection and not NPCs, which they are.
>>23817212>None of the things you do justify the kind of money that you earn. Deadwood academics earn absolutely fuck all.
>>23820873>Some of the most common NPCs are inner-city cosmopolitans who outwardly larp as caring for the "working classThe American political system doesn't work in the interests of it's big cities, it was set up to overrepresent opinions of more rural areas who traditionally supported free trade because it was more agrarian. Some sort of industrial syndicalism isn't really compatible with the American system of government and would require totally scrapping everything. Really this is where things get extremely schizophrenic, American workers of all sorts have always wanted to become independently wealthy property owners and aren't interested in anything you think they should be.>Their opinions are unethical, both if you care about the wellbeing of your countrymenYou're begging begging the question, no? Whoever you're upset about just wouldn't agree economic protectionism is welfare enhancing for anyone and are the ones being more "ethical".
>>23820106his initial essay cited actuaries as a central example of a bullshit job, which is obviously absurd to anyone who actually knows what an actuary doeshe had to walk that back a bit in the book, but his entire "duct tapers" category of jobs is 100% not bullshit, and it's necessary in a real functioning society that can't instantly build perfect systems for free
