Why an Economist shouldn't be a viable job prospect

Running on (possibly) limited information, and sleep deprivation, its easy to argue why economists are actually in fact good for the society.

unfortunately, because of retards, i need to preface this with the fact that i don't think economics is bad, just that economists are pointless. you'll see what i mean.

As much as i hate economics, which isn't really much to begin with, it is undeniably a way for us to understand the most fundamental human actions, to get more money. and it is very helpful knowledge to anyone who has a wallet. but the problem lies not in the subject, but the job itself. The Economists (Dun dun dunnnnn). while economics helps businesses and their managers, as well as politicians, when you job revolves around sitting on a chair and telling people what they should or shouldn't do, you better at least get it right. the problem is that economists always appear so divided on issues that actually matter, like what the Government should do during the recession, and the only time they ever really agree on anything is after it has been proven to work, like a fiscal policy back in Keynes' time, that through some crazy logic, actually helps the country earn more by spending. And in case you thought i was bullshitting with the economists divided thing, here's some proof.

Very few jobs in the world rely on just observing and thinking about the world around us, without really doing anything, most of them are in the vein of telling others what to do, and yess these jobs do actually exist. Jobs like theoretical physicists, psychiatrists and unfortunately economists. the difference is that in most cases the others are correct, or at least lower probability of being wrong then say a coin toss. the only real important thing that we expect out of economists, literally people who make their knowledge of economics the only aspect of their job, is to predict future trends based on what already happened and the proper course of action. everything else they do is just nitty-gritty details. And even then, they still cannot agree over what to do.

the problem lies in the fact that economics is such a "soft" "science", and i use the term science very loosely, that when you come up with an argument for, you can just as easily come up with an argument against and both will seemingly make sense, especially to scared, confused and usually uneducated about economics, public. An extension of that would be the use of often unneccessary jargon. anyone who knows why i prefer not to go into business is because of the stupid technical jargon and buzzword that don't really make sense. Economics has a lot of that. What can already be explained in plain english needs to have another word for it, worse when the word used already exists with another (close but distinct) difference. Students, at least in my school, are often critcised for using "coffeeshop talk" in their essays, in other (theirs') words, language so simple my grandma could understand, which to me doesn't make sense, because so long as the meaning is the same, and the reader understands it the same way, there shouldn't be any difference. Now, i understand that certain words are invented for the sake of shortening sentences, like elasticity. but words like demand and quantity demanded should not have such a different meaning. everytime i hear a teacher complaining about coffeeshop talk, i think to myself, why isn't she praising him/her for using simply understood english.

So back to the point about the irrelevance of Economists. let me use an analogy. Say a guy came for an interview for a job at your firm. he's is extremely well educated about say tables.

So you ask him :"what are the skills you possess that we would need?"

interviewee: "Well, i am very well educated in the field of tables."

you: " Ah, so can you build them?"

interviewee: "Actually, no, i just know a lot about them"

you: "Okay, so can you give me advice on how i should build my tables?"

interviewee: "Well, you see, i could, but all of my knowledge of tables are based on models where all else remain constant. So i cannot reliably give advice in th real world. I could tell you what i think, but the guy sitting beside me would probably disagree."

you: " Hmmm, so can you teach others about tables?"

interviewee: "Ah yes, that i can do, but you would probably end up with people who only know what i know and that isn't really helpful, now is it?"

then you realised that the univers was playing a sick twisted joke on you.

Economists have no "real"(as they like to call it) value to the society, and when combined with the other train wreck that is the media can create a lot of fear-mongering. while now that my awesome exposé has created a black hole where your dreams of becoming an economist used to be, you'd think to yourself "now what am i going to do with my awesome knowledge of economics?" remember when i talked about how businesses use economics to help them in their decisions, you can too. economics is more of additional knowledge, then primary expertise, in the sense that you would rather have a skill where you would be wanted in the job market, such as sports or music or vast knowledge of human anatomy, and then use your economics knowledge to put yourself ahead of the competition, "hedge your bets" a little, like how knowing psychology is incredibly useful even outside of the service sector, where office politics can be much better handled, and stuff like that.

damn, its already 1.15am