Comment by wat10000

> it doesn't cause retail clerks to get paid more because Wall St isn't hiring them away from their existing jobs

Nobody with an existing job actually has to switch professions for Baumol to occur. As the pay gap widens, more kids would study finance and fewer kids would consider retail an adequate career, leading to a relative shortage of retail labor, raising retail wages.

High frequency trading does create benefits. It speeds up market corrections, increases liquidity, and means buyers and sellers get quicker execution closer to consensus market value.

If financiers and doctors are wealthier, they have more disposable income, some of which they will spend in retail, benefiting retail clerks. They will also get taxed more, benefiting other tax payers.

The Baumol effect is sometimes described as a disease. It isn’t. It’s fundamentally redistributive.

I picked finance for my example because demand is practically unlimited. People only need so many clothes, but when your business comes from making money directly, there’s a lot of room for growth.

Imagine some new math allows HFT to make more money. HFT firms wouldn’t start laying off quants. They’d probably hire more to try to capture more of that new money, and they’d have more money available for hiring.

Given the demand for healthcare is extremely inelastic, almost certainly.

What’s your basis for concluding “no”?

London is a very desirable place to live.

The problem I have with these arguments is that they're awfully close to the anti-tourism arguments you hear in tourist towns such as Tahoe. You have this influx of visitors and money, and there's a considerable number of residents who see it as uniformly negative: congestion, high property prices, and so on. Imagine what it could've been without all these rich tech bros!

But then, the US is full of picturesque small towns where the original heavy industry (logging, copper mine, steel mill) disappeared and tourism did not fill the gap. And all the young people moved out in search of better opportunities, except for the ones addicted to meth. There's no money, no jobs, no hope.

Every socioeconomic shift has downsides, but it doesn't automatically mean that the alternative is better. Broad economic gains tend to lift all boats because money changes hands.

Advertising as a source of consumer information is a market for lemons in and of itself. Everyone is free to claim innovation and deliver trash, and internet brands are a dime a dozen. Even just keeping out overt fraud/scams or propaganda campaigns is apparently a losing battle for platforms.

Reviewers/Influencers/interest-publications are often just a half-step above banner ads, but at least has more incentives than just "loudly capture attention" and "publish anything that pays the algorithmic sticker price".

> in a cost effective manner

Facebook is currently showing me these ads:

Lady's earrings (see my name), Pixel 10 (I'm theoretically an iPhone developer), cat food (I don't own any pet let alone a cat), special offers from a supermarket I would have been shopping at anyway even if they had not told me about the offers, a sponsored government message because apparently the Bundesministerium für Gesundheit don't have a better method of contacting German residents than by buying ads from a US social network (I have previously seen such from the British government telling me that some breed of dog was now banned even though I don't own a dog and also live in Germany)…

… but none of that's what's importantly wrong.

Cost effective? It's an auction, each ad in isolation may be fair (but there's reason even then to be suspicious), but in aggregate the ad sector is an all-pay auction.

There's a massive over-supply of solutions because all the startups chase the same ideas at about the same times, and the only one of them to get big is the one that pays enough to the gatekeepers of eyeballs to win the all-pay auction bidding for mindshare.

If everyone stopped advertising, the knowledge of solutions would still diffuse, the winner would be so by word of mouth. The difference is that the 1200 "trusted partners" on all the GDPR popups wouldn't collect rent on advising people on the best strategy for selling their user's privacy and battery life and mobile data allowance for money that those users never get to see, and the people buying those eyeballs wouldn't be wasting their VC runway making something other than the product.

The only way this should happen is if it’s a fake arthritis treatment meant to detect doctors who learn about treatments from advertising instead of legitimate sources, so they can be prevented from practicing medicine.