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

101–110 of 499 posts

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#101

Post by pbrb »

expensivedrone wrote: post #80

I'm a programmer working at a big-tech company. I make ~$350k/year, even though my job could be done equally well by a college intern. I only do ~2 hours of productive work in an average day. My previous jobs were far more interesting and challenging, and I had apparently done extremely well in my interviews. Hence why I got an offer with an extremely good compensation package. However, the team that I go put into, i…

Which city? I'm in the midwest and would need that comp to relocate to SF or NY ;( didn't think it would actually be viable. Actually, if you have some time for some questions, can you PM me?

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#102

Post by _rpd »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #86
mfoy_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 talk to people about changing the world so work is optional, and people are really attached to the idea that everyone should work all the time. Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. Or more conservatively, we could build a world where everyone has 8 weeks of vacation a year or could take 6 months off…

You might be interested in Marcin Jakubowski's work ...

https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#103

Post by pnathan »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #68
TulliusCicero wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. They're saying that the military is a "goon" type of job, in that it involves aggression, and you have to do it because others will plow over you otherwise. It has nothing to do with the character of soldiers. This same underlying logic also applies to corporate lawyers and advertisers.

Right, and therein lies the Guardian's stereotypical grad student reasoning: militaries only exist because of humanity's lack of enlightenment, and military service is therefore a job that "lacks positive value" and is "essentially manipulative and aggressive". Even if you subscribe to the standard litany of lefty anti-person-in-uniform grudges, the notion that militaries around the world exist primarily to guard aga…

> A much bigger motivating factor for the existence of large standing armies is the general desire of illiberal regimes, be they on the right or on the left, to keep the young male population (ie the backbone of a potential revolution) occupied on a daily basis.

Would you mind citing that or expanding on more depth? I'm curious as to your reasoning chain there and think it is an interesting critique of the article's classification.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#104

Post by gf263 »

geodel wrote: post #78
amelius wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The best minds of previous generations were fighting wars or leading battles. I personally do not think either of those activities is specifically better or worse.

Seriously?

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#105

Post by PeterisP »

mfoy_ wrote: post #27

Keynes was a little more direct: "The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up."

However, digging a hole in the ground and then filling it up is horribly, soul crushingly demotivating.

Even if someone is working in a job that de facto amounts to doing just that, it should be covered up so that this fact isn't obvious and that a person can reasonably choose to ignore the truth and convince themselves that their job has some real value. Which is actually done, all kinds of internal propaganda, glorious mission statements, etc.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#107

Post by ngvrnd »

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?

well... one way, you have goons, the other way, you have livers.

The problem with mincome is the hedonic treadmill.

the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#108

Post by Dirlewanger »

tiberius1900 wrote: post #70
Dirlewanger wrote: post #18

In the US, I think it largely stems from our individualistic natures. Our fierce independence comes at a cost to the greater community; we often don't interact, and in the worst case outright loathe, our neighbors. People would rather bitch on NextDoor about a loud party down the block instead of confronting them directly about it. We solve disputes not by working it out with the other party, but with subpoenas. Publ…

I have to say I don't understand many things about your comment, so I'd be glad if you were to clear them for me. 1) You blame your "individualistic natures" for the appearance of pointless jobs. Now, I haven't lived in the US, but that seems odd to me. I live in Romania, a society that is profoundly focused on the community, and the abundance of pointless jobs, particularly in the communistic years (communism being…

>I may be missing something important here, as, again, everything I know about American culture I know from the internet, so, if I am, please feel free to tell me.

Americans, as the saying does, live to work. Many tie their individual worth to the jobs they do. We invest a lot of ourselves into our jobs (those we care about anyway), and oftentimes the output doesn't equal the input.

>Wouldn't the low pay motivate people to work at pulling themselves out of those jobs and into the private sector?

You greatly overestimate the average person's drive to better themselves. Plenty are fine to get something that pays the bills and that's it.

>Secondly, which worker do you think is more productive?

You're going between 2 extremes that I didn't mention. My comment about companies offering jobs comes from the understanding of how positions (mainly in the white collar industry) used to be in the 50s/60s/70s vs. today. People that worked at the IBMs/RANDs/GMs/etc. of yester-decade worked there for decades. They were loyal to that company, almost to a fault. When they retired, they were given an expensive Omega with their name engraved in the back. Some even got pensions. Note this was also largely in the context of the pre-globalization age. Nowadays companies have no problem axing whole divisions to meet their bottom lines. They will go overseas. They have no problem leaving an area they've been at for decades. All the while, baby boomers continue to wonder out loud why their kids don't have the same earnings potential as they did. Not saying any of this is good or bad, it just is.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#109

Post by microtherion »

tome wrote: post #11
kristianc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the edgy teenager in question wrote the generally well-received 'Debt: The First 5000 Years.'

There were certainly plenty of hits of edgy-teenageriness in that book.

Not to forget this quote for the ages:

    Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded 
    by (mostly Republi­can) computer engineers who broke 
    from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little
    democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their
    laptops in each other's garages.

Re: The rise of the pointless job

#110

Post by SnowingXIV »

iriNjfk993 wrote: post #71
mfoy_ wrote: post #27

Keynes was a little more direct: "The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up."

The frustrating thing is though: we have plenty of real demand Social work, infrastructure repairs, mental health services. But all the effort coalesces around BIG Corp. and Douche Co. needs first Somehow we’re convinced that Bezos and Koch’s are more important than our neighbors Some looney economists will tell you it’s proven in physics these people are just better Ignoring the history of violent imperialism and co…

I might be missing a lot of what you're saying, but say I worked for FAAMG - they just pay a lot more than what my neighbor could pay me. Even if repairing the neighbors deck or planting new trees in their yard or whatever might be "better" for society than submitting code for review on some feature. I guess I'm trying to understand what you're getting at because I think a lot of people don't believe Bezos or Koch are special, but they can simply pay them more.
Post reply on HN