Advertising, startups, entertainment, and social media (ie thinly-veiled consumer research) all produce material of value directly or indirectly.
Their value is generally high because the output of a small number of individuals has an impact on a very large number of people. In addition to the services they provide directly, they usually create secondary benefits for society such as releasing new technologies into the open source community.
If you want to tackle waste, you'd be better off by looking into non-profits. How many funnel a significant portion of their funding into 'administrative costs'? How many exist to dodge corporate taxes in the name of 'good will'? How many are thinly-veiled advertising agencies for political special interest groups? How many aim to provide value to the greater populace rather than a very small subset of the population?
What about religion? Not banging on people who follow any specific religion, but nobody ever asks just how much value they're capable of extracting from their followers. How much of that funding goes to providing non-religious services such as entertainment, or backdooring funding to political special interests that support their own worldview.
How about subsidizing post-secondary education that abuses pricing as an entry barrier to exclusivity? Why have degrees become a default requirement for most/all middle class jobs? Why the hell does it still follow a strict 4-year rule for undergrad degrees? Why does everybody still waste the first 2 years learning arbitrary 'core requirements' unrelated to their specialty? How can we realistically subscribe to a fire-and-forget model that assumes everything can be taught up front prior to a lifetime of work. The 'waterfall' model has been proven ineffective in technology, why is it still overwhelmingly supported in education?
I live in San Diego, a hub for biotech research companies. From what I've seen talking to people who work in the field, funding isn't the issue. If anything, there's already too much capital floating around and the larger companies are swallowing the smaller companies en masse to eliminate competition.
I personally knew a guy who works in bleeding-edge cancer research. New advances won't come in the form of a pill or operation. The next generation of treatments hack biology in a way that makes cancer visible to the host's immune system. In addition, cancer is a blanket term to label a class of diseases so one treatment will only treat one/few forms of cancer. Throwing more money at the problem is like trying to hasten software development by throwing more developers at a project.
ROI for healthcare is huge, especially now that insurance is mandatory and basically charged as a 'tax for being alive'. The cost for Snapchat is minimal/nothing whereas healthcare via insurance + medicare/medicate costs make up a significant percentage of individual income.
Their value is generally high because the output of a small number of individuals has an impact on a very large number of people. In addition to the services they provide directly, they usually create secondary benefits for society such as releasing new technologies into the open source community.
If you want to tackle waste, you'd be better off by looking into non-profits. How many funnel a significant portion of their funding into 'administrative costs'? How many exist to dodge corporate taxes in the name of 'good will'? How many are thinly-veiled advertising agencies for political special interest groups? How many aim to provide value to the greater populace rather than a very small subset of the population?
What about religion? Not banging on people who follow any specific religion, but nobody ever asks just how much value they're capable of extracting from their followers. How much of that funding goes to providing non-religious services such as entertainment, or backdooring funding to political special interests that support their own worldview.
How about subsidizing post-secondary education that abuses pricing as an entry barrier to exclusivity? Why have degrees become a default requirement for most/all middle class jobs? Why the hell does it still follow a strict 4-year rule for undergrad degrees? Why does everybody still waste the first 2 years learning arbitrary 'core requirements' unrelated to their specialty? How can we realistically subscribe to a fire-and-forget model that assumes everything can be taught up front prior to a lifetime of work. The 'waterfall' model has been proven ineffective in technology, why is it still overwhelmingly supported in education?
I live in San Diego, a hub for biotech research companies. From what I've seen talking to people who work in the field, funding isn't the issue. If anything, there's already too much capital floating around and the larger companies are swallowing the smaller companies en masse to eliminate competition.
I personally knew a guy who works in bleeding-edge cancer research. New advances won't come in the form of a pill or operation. The next generation of treatments hack biology in a way that makes cancer visible to the host's immune system. In addition, cancer is a blanket term to label a class of diseases so one treatment will only treat one/few forms of cancer. Throwing more money at the problem is like trying to hasten software development by throwing more developers at a project.
ROI for healthcare is huge, especially now that insurance is mandatory and basically charged as a 'tax for being alive'. The cost for Snapchat is minimal/nothing whereas healthcare via insurance + medicare/medicate costs make up a significant percentage of individual income.