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

On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

libcom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#261

Post by afterburner »

mcguire wrote: post #237
humanrebar wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but can you do that until you're 80? And what happens when you have a serious knee problem or a pregnancy? I suspect it's exceptional that someone can do physical labor for 40 hours a week for 45 weeks a year for 60 years. The common response is, "Well, yeah, but you should retire at some point." And that's a fair response, but farm workers are severely under-charging if they expect to work for 30 years…

The ability to survive for 25 years of retirement is a relatively new phenomenon. The economy likely hasn't had a chance to catch up.

Certain economic actors don't want it to catch up.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#262

Post by wolfgke »

dllthomas wrote: post #258
wolfgke wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only answer is to decouple them, and introduce something like basic income ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income ) Or finding work for these people that is a lot more useful for the society.

With a basic income, they can find work for other people (and other people can find work for them).

Basic income is not a necessary condition for that.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#263

Post by gambiting »

talos wrote: post #203

I find it incredible that we're at almost 200 comments, and no one has brought up the phenomenon of people doing real (often clerical office work they don't care too much about, except that it's in a field they're interested in) for free -- unpaid internships. Despite the fact that this is quite illegal, there is no enforcement ( http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-labor-department-l... ).

Maybe because not everyone on HN is from US and it's not illegal everywhere? In fact, it is de facto standard in some countries(as sad as that is).

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#264

Post by crpatino »

jessaustin wrote: post #179
oldmanjay wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't going to be an "after software" with any sort of meaningful human civilization still around.

Yeah I suspect "after human civilization" will happen sooner than "after software".

How curious! I've always thought it will be the other way around.

Your assertion assumes either Doomsday scenario (where humans wipe themselves from the face of Earth, and automated machines keep going for a few more decades until disrepair catches up) or some sort of Singularity that makes humanity itself obsolet (a.k.a. Nerd!Rapture).

On the other hand, History teaches that every civilization has their decline and fall. I suspect that software in its current incarnation (electromagnetic encoding of behaviors on a semiconductor based machine) is so tied to our current civilization that it will not survive more than 1 or 2 centuries at the most. But it is easy to imagine future civilizations thousands of years from now that have sophisticated forms of information processing which people alive today would not recognize as "software", even if the principles behind those are the same.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#265

Post by thedufer »

crdoconnor wrote: post #121
rakoo wrote: post #44

> The answer clearly isn’t economic I beg to differ. I totally agree with the paradox (with the advances in technology, humans should be working less) but the problem, today, is economic: - In order to live you need money - In order to obtain money you need to work (except for the lucky too few) - Therefore, work needs to exist to provide people with money, to the point of creating "useless" jobs if needs be How are…

This is preferable to Basic Income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee For the following reasons: * It it proven and was highly successful during the previous depression. * We actually do have a lot of infrastructure which needs rebuilding and projects which would make all of our lives better (high speed rail, mission to mars, etc.) * People actuall…

> People actually like to work - to feel useful

Your argument seems to hinge on this, but I see no reason to believe it. There have been fairly long-term experiments on BI, and people who choose not to work do things they enjoy - learning to paint, going to school, etc. There weren't any problems with people "needing to work" but not being able to.

> It it proven and was highly successful during the previous depression

Much of the unskilled labor done by the CCC has since been automated into fewer skilled jobs. "It worked in a completely different world" doesn't convince me that it'll work in this one.

> high speed rail, mission to mars, etc.

See what I said re: unskilled->skilled labor shift. To what degree do you actually expect unskilled labor to move those programs along? They're held up by engineering problems, not labor shortages.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#266

Post by superuser2 »

furyg3 wrote: post #48

While there's a lot to debate in the article, kudos to Graeber for talking about a taboo. White-collar employees 'work' (periods of focused concentration) a lot less than 40 hours. There are exceptions, and HNers may deny this fact (because the demographic is different or because the taboo is more powerful in this circle), but Graeber's inebriated cocktail party confessions match my own discussions with friends. Howe…

There was massive outrage a month or so ago when some conservative pundit got hold of information that salaried IRS employees working from home had been doing personal business (laundry, childcare, etc.) during their 40 hours.

I don't think our culture will ever come to grips with this.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#267

Post by dllthomas »

wolfgke wrote: post #262
dllthomas wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a basic income, they can find work for other people (and other people can find work for them).

Basic income is not a necessary condition for that.

But income is.

Meeting the needs of people who cannot pay you is not a job, without some sort of external involvement. Giving them cash is the approach that gives the market the most room to find the best solution. Giving cash to everyone unconditionally gets rid of strange incentives around discontinuities. Hence, a basic income.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#268

Post by dropit_sphere »

humanrebar wrote: post #189
nl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked agricultural jobs. We worked 8 hours a day, with a 15 minute "smoko" break after 2 hours, 1/2 hour lunch break after 4 hours, and another 15 minute break after 6. (This is in Australia, and was these were the award conditions) Except when we were on breaks we were continually working.

Fair enough, but can you do that until you're 80? And what happens when you have a serious knee problem or a pregnancy? I suspect it's exceptional that someone can do physical labor for 40 hours a week for 45 weeks a year for 60 years. The common response is, "Well, yeah, but you should retire at some point." And that's a fair response, but farm workers are severely under-charging if they expect to work for 30 years…

>but farm workers are severely under-charging

Farm workers are not charging. If they had the market power to set a price, they wouldn't be doing farm work.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#269

Post by nine_k »

dirktheman wrote: post #27
confluence wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That answer is complete bullshit. > In the United States, socialism is virtually nonexistent. Except for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Unemployment. And don't forget the military.

By that definition the whole of Western Europe would be a socialist state. Government services like these do not equal socialism. I live in The Netherlands, a pretty liberal kingdom with excellent social security and unemployment benefits. But don't be mistaken, it's not a socialist country. Not by a long shot. The biggest political parties are liberal-conservative and social-democrats. The latter lean towards the le…

See, you arrived to this conclusion yourself.

Most of the Western Europe is ruled by Social Democrats or Socialists of various kinds. While it might be less pronounced in Netherlands or Germany, you could take a look at Denmark, or Sweden, or France, or find out what were the slogans of the latest campaigns in Spain.

According to the dictionary definition of socialism, it requires 'socialization of means of means of production' or 'social ownership'. In the current crop of Western Socialism, this is done via governmental regulations of business and large redistribution of wealth via taxes.

Note that Socialism is not Communism. It can rather well coexist with a market economy, as long as both are somehow constrained, and the economy is strong enough (like in Germany or France, unlike in Spain).

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#270

Post by dragonwriter »

zo1 wrote: post #243
jessaustin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is capitalism, not tax funded corporations. I feel your pain, but we've got to let go of this word. "Capitalism" has meant exactly "tax-funded corporations", and all the other bullshit that you and I don't like, for such a long time, that this is the accepted meaning now. I don't think the phrase "free market" has been spoiled yet, but if we have to have an -ism then we need to come up with a new one. Avoid the…

No, don't, please. Do Not let go of a word and its definition. It has a definition, and you must stick with it and not give them an inch of ground. It's a losing battle, where constant re-definition means that eventually anything applies under the term. Giving them ground is precisely why you, and others think that we've lost the term "capitalism". For so long, we let individuals use it in bastardized terms to refer…

The term "capitalism" was coined by socialists in the context of criticism of the dominant 19th century system of the developed world, which had all the features of cronyism, etc., that you are trying to exclude here.

The idea that capitalism was ever anything else was an attempt by defenders of that system to whitewash it, distract from the cronyism inherent in it, and discredit critics. But its part of what "capitalism" has meant from day one -- and part of what every actual capitalist system in practice has featured prominently.

Post reply on HN