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

231–240 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#231

Post by corin_ »

draugadrotten wrote: post #60
mgkimsal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not everyone can be a software developer, and frankly we can't have a society of people who only have specialist skills. There will always be a need for people with minimal skills to do low-skill jobs. They're doing work that has to get done too.

> frankly we can't have a society of people who only have specialist skills. Out of curiosity, why not? And frankly, isn't it already the case? Most people are unable to produce enough for their own survival today. They can't grow crops, build a home, even make their own bread. Instead they are specialists at project management, javascript or flipping burgers. I'm not arguing that this is bad or wrong, I am only sayi…

You're not really disagreeing, except on terminology. You're defining "specialist skills" as "narrowing down your work away from (do everything that allows me to live on my own)", whereas your parent meant "specialist as opposed to ". For example, someone working the checkout in a shop is technically a specialised job (by the definition you're using), but in the context of our current culture it's easy enough that a vast majority of people could "become specialised" in it almost immediately.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#232

Post by jdmichal »

I'm surprised to see no mention of the wage stagnation that has been occurring, at least in the US. Quite simply, people can't stop working if they need the money that 40 hours of work brings. Meanwhile, inflation keeps ticking up and housing bubbles at rates far above inflation.

It could, in fact, be argued that we have made negative progress since 1910. In that same time period, most households have gone from one worker to two as women join the labor force. So now, on a household basis, we are looking at 60+ hours per week instead of 40.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#233

Post by cowabunga »

foobarqux wrote: post #206
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…

People worked in factories for 14+ hours of continuous work.

My mother in law broke after 30 years of this. She now costs thousands each month in disability, housing, medical and mobility costs.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#234

Post by dragonwriter »

crdoconnor wrote: post #188
rakoo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People actually like to work - to feel useful. There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. I think it's completely wrong, people (most of them) will continue to work; the huge difference is that they will not do it for the money, but for the actual effect it has. Your example shows it. You can also ask yourselves if chefs, musicians, programmers, mechanic…

>There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. Rather than answering supposedly common misconceptions that nobody on this thread actually had - answer me this instead: What is so wrong with giving the unemployed a JOB rather than just money? They need money, but they also want to work. During the last depression the PWA built tons of useful stuff, much of whi…

> What is so wrong with giving the unemployed a JOB rather than just money?

If you give them basic income, then the jobs can pay what the jobs are worth, and no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs that take time that could be used for focussed training, risky (but potentially valuable) self-initiated ventures, etc.

Any such make-work jobs proposal is obviously paying a premium over the actual value of the work (which is why the same job isn't available in the market already), so instead treat the premium as basic income, and the job will be available, through the market, at its actual value (and, with an adequate BI, you don't need a minimum wage, because the BI provides basic support, so taking a low-wage job that may be more suitable for other reasons than pay doesn't have the opportunity cost of not being able to provide basic support.)

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#235

Post by refurb »

sklogic wrote: post #142
dognotdog wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take it out on socialism! Under those principles, the banks either would not have existed in this form in the first place, or been allowed to go bankrupt just as you suggest. What happened with the bank bailout was pure capitalism, the banks simply bought the government!

In fact, large corporate entities are nearly as wasteful and inefficient as the socialist bureaucratic state-controlled monsters from the USSR. Looks like key here is in being monstrous, not in the underlying ideology.

The big difference there is that when a company is wasteful, they do it with their own money. When the state is wasteful, that's my money they are pissing away.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#236

Post by dragonwriter »

rakoo wrote: post #169
crdoconnor wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. I think it's completely wrong, people (most of them) will continue to work; the huge difference is that they will not do it for the money, but for the actual effect it has. Your example shows it. You can also ask yourselves if chefs, musicians, programmers, mechanic…

> I think it's completely wrong, people (most of them) will continue to work; the huge difference is that they will not do it for the money

Of course they'll do it for the money -- at least, for a very long time until productivity is so high that the economy can provide a very comfortable lifestyle that most people are happy with without work (but that's going to take very high output with little labor, which we are nowhere close to and may never reach, given the way that experience drives expectations and expectations increase with output.)

BI reduces the downside risk of unemployment or entrepreneurial failure, provides opportunities to transitionally opt-out of regular employment or income-earning activity for education or other personal development, etc., but it doesn't in any realistic near-term scenario make it so that the vast majority of the population isn't working (whether at wage labor or something more entrepreneurial) for money.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#237

Post by mcguire »

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…

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.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#238

Post by dllthomas »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #170
rakoo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People actually like to work - to feel useful. There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. I think it's completely wrong, people (most of them) will continue to work; the huge difference is that they will not do it for the money, but for the actual effect it has. Your example shows it. You can also ask yourselves if chefs, musicians, programmers, mechanic…

Not to mention basic income is not a comfortable living. Folks will not work unless they can get paid enough to notice. Will that drive down entry-level salaries, or drive them up? Hm.

Probably a little of both, depending on how much people want to do the work in question for other reasons.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#239

Post by klunger »

The "elephant in the room" of this article was wealth redistribution. Technological advancements should make it possible for people to work 15-20 hours a week. In theory. The problem is that those same technological advancements go hand in hand with increased concentrations of wealth. It is the regrettable observed tendency of people with considerably more wealth than the masses to be stingy with that wealth, feel they inherently deserve it and lack empathy.

So, if people in general are to benefit from technological advancements, there needs to be legislated wealth redistribution to overcome the inherent miserly-ness of the 1% whose wealth is largely a function of that technology.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#240

Post by 72deluxe »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #194

From my POV, working 40 hours a week instead of 15 is a conscious choice. I could probably start my own company or source of income and get away with working 15 hours or even less a week, but I'm not going to. One, working for a boss is secure - I know what I'm gonna earn by the end of the month, no stress there. Two... I honestly wouldn't know what to do with the remaining time. I'm not an artsy hipster that spends…

This is quite true. Some of my friends and family work for themselves and I could not possibly cope with the stress of having to win jobs or worry if I was going to get paid at the end of the month. Despite the romantic ideas of working for yourself, it appears to offer LESS flexibility instead of more - they're always working! Instead of "I can work when and where I want!" it turns into "I am always working, anywhere"

I could happily find things to do in my spare time though. Like playing an instrument, or reading.

Post reply on HN