[emodendroket]

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.

[xocyabencl]

More productivity allows the work to get done with fewer workers, which is generally a good thing in normal economic conditions.

[emodendroket]

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.

[xocyabencl]

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.

[emodendroket]

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?