>>24854863
>limits the "trend towards increasing efficiency in everything quantifiable" to just this laborer's work specifically. But as we discussed above, employee being efficient at doing a lot of work means him being inefficient for his own purposes.

You're broadening the context in which we're speaking about efficiency. The context in which reality is taking place is one where two parties have contracted together. One side agrees to do a scope of work and the other side agrees to pay that person. If one party breaks the contract, it's not that party being "more efficient" it's him not doing anything, in fact being purely inefficient because input/output x 100 would equal 0 here. That's why I say I don't think you really understand the word efficiency and what it means, it's always to be evaluated in context. In this case, the goal is defined as the scope of work the employee is an "employee" to do. Obviously.

>A lawyer being highly efficient at pursuing lawsuits

Highly efficient at pursuing lawsuits? Well surely you mean attempting to shut down businesses or work practices that are damaging or that have broken the law or for some other intendedly beneficial purpose. He's not doing it for the hell of it. And as you know, the law exists to prevent anarchy, so in the grand scheme this lawyer is fulfilling the system's purpose of increasing efficiency, while being efficient at doing so in whatever backfiring example this is lol.

>Any processing worker...

Again, you don't seem to understand efficiency. You're conflating the amount of something produced to the efficiency of how it is produced. If you need less raw materials, that doesn't mean the "efficiency of extraction" goes down. Whatever IS extracted is still going to be extracted in the most efficient way possible, if not just for the profit motive.

>And a highly efficient QA inspector...

You're again not understanding what the word EFFICIENCY means. I suggest you look it up right now. You're conflating EFFECTIVE with EFFICIENT. But even so, a quality inspectors purpose is to enforce a certain quality standard which in theory leads to less rebuilds, fewer lawsuits, preservation of the value of the property, consumer perception of trustworthiness which leads to more aggregate purchases, more velocity of money which culminates in greater system efficiency, not less.

>But that's the thing - someone can (and does) willfully choose to do things in a way that is inefficiency in many different ways

You're describing increasing efficiency again and then conflating it with quality lol. You don't understand what you're arguing here.

>ending up unreliable products that fail to satisfy customers
If the latter is true then they don't sell anything, and are forced to increase quality until they do. Making a bunch of shit that never gets sold is definitely an inefficient use of resources but the nature of the system is that these things simply don't sell and the company goes out of business.