Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of the pointless job

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 499 posts

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#51

Post by lmm »

mfoy_ wrote: post #47
tlb wrote: post #19

The goon category is interesting in a future world where AI has replaced most jobs, because it can employ an unlimited number of people. (Goon jobs exist to counterbalance other goon jobs. Militaries are the canonical example.) Most jobs -- teachers, auto workers, plumbers, farmers -- have a natural ceiling on employment related to demand, but goon jobs don't because when one side hires more goons, the other side has…

I die inside. But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?

The protestant work ethic is still there - the notion that a difficult job is better for the person doing it than an easier job with the same pay.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#52

Post by logfromblammo »

vinceguidry wrote: post #8

Edwardian-era mansions employed whole teams of butlers whose sole job was replacing candles. Not everyone is in a position to make a discernible impact on society. 20% of society will always drive 80% of progress. Think hard how you want the remaining 80% to support their families.

Replacing candles was not a pointless job until electrification and incandescent bulbs achieved widespread adoption.

The Edwardian reign was just at the tail end of candle-based lighting. By 1914, most of the households that could afford it would have already installed at least one electric light. The Great War would have devastated the available supply of footmen, and made those still around prohibitively expensive, so I'd expect that any servant-employing house would have given up their candle-men entirely by 1918. They would be electrified afterward, with the hand-carried lighting moving to oil lamps, and any lamp-refill duties moved to less expensive female servants.

After that, those teams of footmen could be replaced by just one footman, or part-time handyman, to replace burnt-out bulbs. We still have people whose job includes responsibility for replacing malfunctioning lighting, including fluorescent tubes and ballasts. But we no longer have people whose sole responsibility is lighting, except perhaps in the very largest buildings, or those with special lighting needs, such as museums.

It wasn't busy work, but the majority of those jobs definitely don't exist any more.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#53

Post by mfoy_ »

weirdstuff wrote: post #24
toomuchtodo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking someone to be constructive isn’t policing. Why should poor behavior not illicit a comment? Keep HN high signal to noise! Edit: The crowd is free to use downvotes judiciously if calling out the disingenuous is frowned upon. That’s what they’re there for.

Because 1) he made a valid point. 2) It’s noise to whom? You? Not me per se. 3) You’re claiming authority over what is acceptable on HN.

>Then just ignore the comment! We don’t need any more HN comment policing.

Sounds more like you're claiming authority over what is acceptable on HN...

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#54

Post by KyleGalvin »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #9
yosito wrote: post #5

Pointless jobs like being paid to write an article about pointless jobs? Edit: For those to whom the humor didn't come across, I'm just teasing. This isn't an attack on the author.

Wouldn’t a constructive comment be more useful than attacking an educated academic making an observation?

A little tongue-in-cheek call out of the irony isn't necessarily an attack.

Bullshit jobs are an interesting phenomenon and I enjoyed the article. I also chuckled at the parent comment.

It doesn't have to be taken very seriously.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#55

Post by bryanlarsen »

tlb wrote: post #19

The goon category is interesting in a future world where AI has replaced most jobs, because it can employ an unlimited number of people. (Goon jobs exist to counterbalance other goon jobs. Militaries are the canonical example.) Most jobs -- teachers, auto workers, plumbers, farmers -- have a natural ceiling on employment related to demand, but goon jobs don't because when one side hires more goons, the other side has…

Advertising is a very typical arms race. If you're the only one advertising, a small cheap ad is very effective. If your competitor is advertising you have to spend just as much just to tread water. If you spend more, it forces your competitors to spend more too.

It's not surprising that the modern Silicon Valley economy is built on advertising.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#56

Post by c22 »

A lot of people have pointless jobs, but it seems even more people have jobs that are actively contributing to the wanton destruction of our entire world. I suspect these are both symptoms of our elevation of capital to the status of universal good. This will only get worse as long as we continue to espouse the default view that people who "don't have a job" are useless moochers and people who have high paying jobs are valuable contributors to society.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#57

Post by _rpd »

mfoy_ wrote: post #47
tlb wrote: post #19

The goon category is interesting in a future world where AI has replaced most jobs, because it can employ an unlimited number of people. (Goon jobs exist to counterbalance other goon jobs. Militaries are the canonical example.) Most jobs -- teachers, auto workers, plumbers, farmers -- have a natural ceiling on employment related to demand, but goon jobs don't because when one side hires more goons, the other side has…

I die inside. But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?

I honestly don't think it would be a bad thing if there were ten times as many lawyers, so that the cost of using the legal system became affordable to the vast majority of the people living under it.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#58

Post by itronitron »

tlb wrote: post #19

The goon category is interesting in a future world where AI has replaced most jobs, because it can employ an unlimited number of people. (Goon jobs exist to counterbalance other goon jobs. Militaries are the canonical example.) Most jobs -- teachers, auto workers, plumbers, farmers -- have a natural ceiling on employment related to demand, but goon jobs don't because when one side hires more goons, the other side has…

cyber-xyz is the other new white-collar goon job

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#59

Post by blackbagboys »

Aunche wrote: post #35

In some developing countries, there's an unofficial social contract that the wealthy should employ as many people as possible, even if they need to make pointless jobs. A company I worked for had a remote office in India that employed people to hand out paper towels in the bathrooms.

This is also common in higher-end nightclubs and bars in the U.S., although these aren't full-time jobs and the attendants work mostly for tips.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#60

Post by amelius »

c22 wrote: post #56

A lot of people have pointless jobs, but it seems even more people have jobs that are actively contributing to the wanton destruction of our entire world. I suspect these are both symptoms of our elevation of capital to the status of universal good . This will only get worse as long as we continue to espouse the default view that people who "don't have a job" are useless moochers and people who have high paying jobs…

"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."

--Jeff Hammerbacher

Post reply on HN