Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Economic growth is not zero sum, but job seeking is.

A zero sum game is, simply put, one with a winner and a loser. Trade can have mutual benefit, hence it's not zero sum. Job seeking is still about winners and losers.

Interestingly, I'd argue that as economic growth increases, per-capita job creation dwindles. Less than half of americans are currently gainfull employed, between disability, unemployment, retirment, childhood, or extended adolesence. 100 years ago, we couldn't afford to allow so many people to loaf.

Polonius wrote:A zero sum game is, simply put, one with a winner and a loser. Trade can have mutual benefit, hence it's not zero sum. Job seeking is still about winners and losers.

The presence of a winner and a loser doesn't make it a zero sum game. You can have competitive non-zero sum games.

Yeah, isn't a zero-sum game where everyone who is not a winner is a loser?

According to wikipedia:

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s)"

So, two people who are going for the same job. One is hired, one is not. The one who is hired gets the opportunity to have the livelihood implied by the job, the one who is not loses that opportunity. Ergo, zero sum.

Melissia wrote:According to wikipedia:

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s)"

So, two people who are going for the same job. One is hired, one is not. The one who is hired gets the opportunity to have the livelihood implied by the job, the one who is not loses that opportunity. Ergo, zero sum.

But, that assumes that jobs are in a limited quantity.

Plenty of companies will hire extra employees for a single "opening" if applicants are strong enough.

And plenty of companies will instead promote from within and hire noone.

Melissia wrote:And plenty of companies will instead promote from within and hire noone.

The person who got promoted will have a vacancy that needs filled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:

Melissia wrote:According to wikipedia:

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s)"

So, two people who are going for the same job. One is hired, one is not. The one who is hired gets the opportunity to have the livelihood implied by the job, the one who is not loses that opportunity. Ergo, zero sum.

But, that assumes that jobs are in a limited quantity.

Plenty of companies will hire extra employees for a single "opening" if applicants are strong enough.

Only to fulfil a roll that they will look for in future. If a company is looking at applicants for an IT support job, but is thinking of hiring a programmer in 6 months time, they might hire one of the IT support applicants as a programmer if he/she has particular experience.
But in general no. Just because someone is amazing at what they do it doesn't mean a business can afford to hire them. If a business has the money to fill a vacancy that it isn't looking at filling anyway, it won't hire someone.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:And plenty of companies will instead promote from within and hire noone.

The person who got promoted will have a vacancy that needs filled.

Maybe. Not always.