The article talks about people's careers being stymied, or people losing promotions to, colleagues whose attention span is longer because they're abusing Adderall. That's the intro.
> The human brain wasn’t built for accounting or software engineering. A few lucky people can do these things ten hours a day, every day, with a smile. The rest of us start fidgeting and checking our cell phone somewhere around the thirty minute mark. I work near the financial district of a big city, so every day a new Senior Regional Manipulator Of Tiny Numbers comes in and tells me that his brain must be broken because he can’t sit still and manipulate tiny numbers as much as he wants. How come this is so hard for him, when all of his colleagues can work so diligently?
> (it’s because his colleagues are all on Adderall already – but telling him that will just make things worse)
> He goes on to give me his story about how he’s at risk of getting fired from his Senior Regional Manipulator Of Tiny Numbers position, and at this rate he’s never going to get the promotion to Vice President Of Staring At Giant Spreadsheets, so do I think I can give him some Adderall to help him through?
Sports is a zero-sum game. Productive labor is not. The mathematician Paul Erdos used amphetamines to make many major breakthroughs. This was a great benefit for society, regardless of whether he perhaps took a professorship that some less productive mathematician would otherwise have obtained.
Promotions, and the salary/opportunity increases that come with them, absolutely are a zero-sum game. I’m a little baffled that anyone could think otherwise, actually.
While many industries have an element of zero-sum competition, that's not the default. Whether you're designing a car, doing a surgery, giving a haircut, cooking a hamburger, etc. you are giving something of value to your customers.
You’re describing retail jobs, where that might be true. But most white-collar workers never interact directly with customers. They have to demonstrate value to their boss, which does make it a zero-sum situation.
I don't think any of the jobs I listed are retail. I went out of my way to include a variety of industries, including knowledge work. "Demonstrating value to your boss" could include zero-sum bullshit or actual production. As a programmer, I've done both kinds of work.
Even assuming (optimistically) that an exceptionally good hair stylist could somehow... uh, I don't know, be so good that they can hire more stylists? Assuming there's space?... it's pretty rare to have, say, multiple heads of the same department.
You could cut more people's hair by getting it done faster, or do a better job cutting each person's hair. The point is that jobs where productivity improvement is possible are very common. Economically, productivity and technology are equivalent, and are the basis for prosperity. Productivity is not, in general, zero-sum.
The post uses accounting, which, well, maybe it's a different story if we're talking about complicated tax schemes that can save a lot of money, but in general I think we can say that if the workers are more productive fewer rather than more are needed.
It seems to me like this claim contradicts your previous assertion that there's "no zero-sum game." The zero-sum game is, they only need so many workers, and if all your coworkers are achieving levels of productivity only possible with chemical enhancement, then you get left behind.
This is no different than saying that the street sweepers were left behind by street sweeping machines. Or that accountants got left behind by the invention of accounting software. This is what technology is all about. It's not zero-sum, because there's other work in the world waiting to be done to make people's lives better.
You may have have a bad work environment where you feel like the only goal of your work is to one-up your co-workers. But your boss is not paying you and your co-workers to compete for sport. The reason you are getting a paycheck is because you are giving someone something they value. That person would be happier if they could get it for less money by putting you out of the job. But if that happens, that doesn't mean you should be unemployed - it means you could be helping society in a different way. In a well-functioning labor market, every worker will be more prosperous if they all produce more.
Maybe ideally on some macro level that's how it works out. In the meantime, on the micro level, many people are in competition with their coworkers and it seems kind of blind to the realities of the workplace to pretend otherwise. Everybody here has heard of stack ranking, right?
> The human brain wasn’t built for accounting or software engineering. A few lucky people can do these things ten hours a day, every day, with a smile. The rest of us start fidgeting and checking our cell phone somewhere around the thirty minute mark. I work near the financial district of a big city, so every day a new Senior Regional Manipulator Of Tiny Numbers comes in and tells me that his brain must be broken because he can’t sit still and manipulate tiny numbers as much as he wants. How come this is so hard for him, when all of his colleagues can work so diligently?
> (it’s because his colleagues are all on Adderall already – but telling him that will just make things worse)
> He goes on to give me his story about how he’s at risk of getting fired from his Senior Regional Manipulator Of Tiny Numbers position, and at this rate he’s never going to get the promotion to Vice President Of Staring At Giant Spreadsheets, so do I think I can give him some Adderall to help him through?
I don't see the problem with the analogy.