Choosing an unethical career

Whether it's pushpin, poetry or neither, you can discuss it here.

Choosing an unethical career

Postby Arepo on 2011-08-31T12:56:00

A train of thought I've been toying with recently:

Industry salaries are related to, among other things, how popular the industry is. Trendy businesses can pay less to their employees because there’ll be so many people who want to work for them anyway. I think this is basic economics, but worth stating. Conversely, jobs which seem offputting can pay quite a bit more than equivalent jobs elsewhere, because they have fewer potential recruits to attract. Sometimes this will be because the work is genuinely unpleasant somehow (in a remote area, hazardous, or whatever), but there’s one area that pays more at very little cost to the employee – unethical jobs.

The more harmful an industry is seen to be, the more, by and large, it’ll pay for an equivalent role to elsewhere.

Digression:

Alan has argued that working for a benevolent industry gains little net improvement:

Example: Suppose Alice and ten other people are applying for the position of campaign coordinator for an advocacy group. Alice is hired and feels good about all of the work that she's doing. She forgets, however, that because she was hired, someone else wasn't. In her place, that person would have done all sorts of great work, too.

One way to think of the situation is as follows. Consider all of the nonprofits that do good work. Those nonprofits have essentially fixed budgets that allow them to hire an essentially fixed number of employees. Since nearly all of these positions will be filled by someone, much of the work that Alice does with one of those organizations would have been done by someone else in her place. Hence, the difference that Alice makes on the world is only the amount by which she's more productive than whoever would have been hired instead.[1]

I think this argument is mildly mistaken, and I’ll explain why, since it’s quite relevant and I’ve been meaning to bring it up for a while. It’s true if there are 10 people competing for the only position in the industry, but otherwise there are various factors that affect how much difference Alice would make. Start with number of available jobs that she’s competent for. Suppose the 10 people are each differently capable at the role (name them 1 to 10, according to their relative competence), and there are two jobs available – and that the HR departments are perfectly rational and perfectly timed. Before Alice enters the picture, the jobs would be taken by 9 and 10, who would contribute 19 net ability (aptilons?) to the industry.

Alan’s claim seems to be that if Alice joined – with 11 aptilons – the industry would benefit by 1 aptilon as she pushed out 10 from his role. But clearly, if Alice displaced 10 from his job, he would be employed in the second role, displacing 9. So the industry would actually gain 2 aptilons – the total of the people who’d be in each role if Alice joined minus the total of those who’d be in it if she didn’t. If there were three roles available, she’d add 3 aptilons.

Relatedly (actually another way of looking at the same thing), the more skilled Alice is relative to the group, the more she adds. Perhaps there are three jobs, but 12 is also planning to join the industry – this means she’ll still only displace 10, so it’s equivalent to her having joined an industry with two jobs.

A last factor (though there might be others I haven’t thought of) is the difference in skill between the weaker candidates. If only 1 and 10 actually end up applying for the two available jobs, then the industry can expect a difference of 10 aptilons between Alice joining and going elsewhere. In practice, the more people there are going for the jobs, the more this effect is likely to be diminished.

As Alan points out further in his essay (and basically as I described at the start), the number of candidates also effects the salaries of the job, so joining an industry slightly depresses the wages it needs to pay and thus increases its profits/efficiency. Alan ignored this effect and I will too, since it’s probably a lesser factor and definitely more complicated, especially given other stimuli in a regulated state.

I do want to highlight that joining a sector has a trickle-down effect though, and that that effect is stronger the more similar jobs it has which you’re competent for and more difference there is between people (in practice, the fewer people there are) who’re interested in and competent for a similar set of roles.

/Digression

All that said, lets go back to unethical jobs. These are the obvious ones I can think of off the top of my head, in vaguely decreasing order of harm by industry (with plenty of room for quibble):

Organised crime
Weapons research
Weapons manufacture
Advocacy of harmful political positions
Macroeconomist
Tobacco
Defence barrister
Working for oppressive government departments (obviously higher in unpleasant states, but in 1st world countries there aren't many *seriously* nasty groups)
Alcohol and other legal recreational (and harmful) drugs
Gambling
Banking
Big pharmaceutical companies

I’m sure I’ve missed some obvious areas, but there’s a few. As you get lower on the list, it becomes less clear whether these industries have net deleterious effects on society at all. Anything from tobacco down clearly provides a lot of passing pleasure to some people, and maybe bankers in much their current unregulated state ultimately make the economy run better (and pharmaceutical companies might very well be the best model we actually have for improving medicine). In any case, what’s important to their salary is what potential applicants (or people who might consider training in the skills they need) think is most ‘unethical’) – not necessarily how harmful they actually are.

So is it worthwhile for professional donors of the sort Alan’s encouraging to consider jobs in such industries? Given the phenomenally high power of first-world money sent to the right causes, I suspect the answer is generally ‘yes’. This might be moderated by the number of aptilons you’d expect to bring to the industry, and also by the thought that the people you’ll socialise with are unlikely to be very socially conscious, thus running considerable risk of dragging down your own social conscience. This latter risk must be counterbalanced slightly by the thought of the reverse – that you’ll be able to make otherwise unethical people slightly more benign. Signing a giving pledge before joining it would also decrease the risk of you renouncing your views altogether – even if you consider pledging fairly immaterial, the condemnation of promise-breaking is held much more widely than anything resembling utilitarianism, so people in unethical industries would be less likely to try and cajole you out of a pledge than out of your general utilitarian motivation to give.

Which industry you join (ceteris paribus – obviously circumstances and ability might direct you to some over others) will be influenced by various factors: the difference between public perception of its unethicalness and the actual net harm it causes; the amount of aptilons you expect to add to it on above considerations (obviously fewer being preferable); personal inclination – the feeling of being professionally unethical might be very unpleasant even when you know it’s irrational, thus and cause burnout; further existential risk considerations that might lead you to an outright veto of some (ie the top three); the PR relevance of utilitarians encouraging people to join the mafia etc.

Having said that, it’s also conceivable, again given the power of first-world money, that some or all of these considerations are irrelevant. Perhaps money is so effective that we do best to seek it by (almost) any means possible.
"These were my only good shoes."
"You ought to have put on an old pair, if you wished to go a-diving," said Professor Graham, who had not studied moral philosophy in vain.
User avatar
Arepo
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:49 am

Re: Choosing an unethical career

Postby RyanCarey on 2011-09-01T07:01:00

I largely agree with your assessment, although I'm uncommitted on the 'trickle-down effect'. Furthermore, I suspect that you are roughly along the right track in your last paragraph about the dominance of the power of first-world money.

It seems to me that choosing an unethical career is a special case of the general concept of choosing an unappealing career. It's not intrinsically good that a career is unethical or unappealing. The reason you'd want to choose a career is because it would be an instrument that you can use to earn a large income to donate. As a general rule, the less appealing a career is, the better it will be paid. Of the aspects that can make a career unappealing, a reputation for low ethical standards is only one. Here are others:
> poor working conditions - e.g. cleaning toilets
> lack of prestige more broadly - e.g. car sales
> socially difficult role - e.g. door to door sales
> hierarchical culture e.g. surgeon
If we interpret 'appeal' as broadly as possible, as I think we should, then more factors include:
> years of training involved in enter the profession
> years of networking required to get the position
and so on...

Note, however, that these are only useful for their ability to estimate a job's salary. Even taken together, they're no substitute for actually talking to someone in the industry and finding out the facts for yourself!
You can read my personal blog here: CareyRyan.com
User avatar
RyanCarey
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:01 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Choosing an unethical career

Postby Pat on 2011-09-17T20:53:00

Interesting point about the trickle-down effect. It certainly seems that a full account the issue would be more complex than the one presented in this talk.

I doubt that "dirtiness" should play much of a role in career choices. For example, stateside public defenders are overworked and despised by much of the public, but their pay is pretty low. But it is worth noting that salaries in the non-profit sector are low. And if you're going to inherit your mafia-don dad's family business, it's not immediately obvious that you should try to get into another line of work. (Imagine throwing suitcases of $100-dollar bills out of a car while driving by the offices of your favorite charity.)

One unsavory money-making course of action that you should consider is suing businesses, doctors, or wealthy individuals. If you suspect that the expected value of the lawsuit outweighs the opportunity costs of pursuing it, you should at least consult a lawyer.

Pat
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:12 pm
Location: Bethel, Alaska

Re: Choosing an unethical career

Postby tog on 2011-09-22T15:41:00

Sounds like you're thinking of going into organised crime ;)

Seriously, I think you're right and have had the same thought. I'm not sure I can think of any unethical careers that you can easily enter and make a lot of money. I wonder whether the forthcoming High Impact Careers website (which I've been helping out with to a very small extent) will list any... I think it's going to eventually try listing the best career paths for professional donors. I'll have to suggest they add organised crime to the list...
User avatar
tog
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:58 am


Return to General discussion