That night I dreamed a surreal Dilbert type revolution where oppressed cubical workers
everywhere rose up and pitched workstations out windows, torched the server rooms, danced
on the backup tapes in the streets, and bowled mid-level managers strapped to fake leather
office chairs into vending machines and stacks of office water bottles, the big ones.
Perhaps you should seek professional help :-)
Vonbek777:
JP wrote:
Perhaps you should seek professional help.
Are you suggesting that isn't a normal fantasy for frustrated IT people everywhere?
The current US cultural norms glorify and misrepresent "hard work" making emphasis on
the "hard" part: tremendous effort, long hours, no vacations, etc. This a kind of groupthink.
In other cultures the emphasis in not on the word "hard" but on the word "quality.
Social approval is bestowed on those who are "doing their best" rather than "working hard"
(i.e. long hours, up to physical exhaustion).
And there is not this neoliberal "you're going to get
the payoff if you work hard" quid pro quo. For example, Japanese culture glorify those who have done
their best. Which can done more for the a personal satisfaction than for a financial compensation.
That same is true about Russian culture. Glossing over some complexity, workagolism is not socially
desirable trait in many cultures.
OK, you understand that neoliberalism rules. That means that you soon will be outsourced. Or that
you will have a psychopathic boss. Soon. And you "good work" will be destroyed. That the logic of neoliberalism too (profits
before people). Or you might get authoritarian boss ("kiss up, kick down" type) . Or that any initiative is drown in Organizational Stupidity,
Pointless Policies and Muddled Management. Now what ? Please understand that the resistance is
not futile and can take many forms.
As Mark Kingwell, a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, observed the idea of just "slow yourself
down" in not that crazy in the modern neoliberal society. People wear down very fast under the pace dictated by many current
workplaces.At this point, we return with renewed urgency to the political aspect of the question of leisure
and work
Here we will discuss just one -- Slackerism. As Mark Kingwell, a professor of philosophy at the University
of Toronto, observed the idea of just "slow yourself down" in not that crazy in the modern neoliberal society. People wear down
very fast under the pace dictated by many current workplaces
(The
Barbed Gift of Leisure)
At this point, we return with renewed urgency to the political aspect of the question of leisure
and work. Everyone from Plato and Thomas More to H.G. Wells and Barack Obama has given thought to
the question of the fair distribution of labor and fun within a society. This comes with an immediate
risk: Too often, the "realist" rap against any such scheme of imagined distributive justice, which
might easily entail state intervention concerning who does what and who gets what, is that the predicted
results depend on altered human nature, are excessively costly, or are otherwise unworkable. The
deadly charge of utopianism always lies ready to hand.
... ... ...
Veblen, after his fashion a sharp critic of capitalism but always more cynical than the socialist
dreamers, demonstrated how minute divisions of leisure time could be used to demonstrate social superiority,
no matter what the form or principle of social organization; but he was no more able than Marx
to see how ingenious capitalist market forces could be in adapting to changing political environments.
For instance, neither of them sensed what we now know all too well, namely that democratizing access
to leisure would not change the essential problems of distributive justice. Being freed from drudgery
only so that one may shop or be entertained by movies and sports, especially if this merely perpetuates
the larger cycles of production and consumption, is hardly liberation. In fact, "leisure time" becomes
here a version of the company store, where your hard-won scrip is forcibly swapped for the very things
you are working to make.
Worse, on this model of leisure-as-consumption, the game immediately gets competitive, if not
zero-sum. And this is not just a matter of the general sociological argument that says humans will
always find ways to outdo each other when it comes to what they buy, wear, drive, or listen to. This
argument is certainly valid; indeed, our basic primate need for position within hierarchies means
that such competition literally ceases only in death. These points are illustrated with great acumen
by Pierre Bourdieu, whose monumental study Distinction is the natural successor to The
Theory of the Leisure Class. No, the issue can really only be broached using old-fashioned Marxist
concepts such as surplus value and commodity fetishism.
It was the Situationist thinker Guy Debord who made the key move in this quarter. In his 1967
book, Society of the Spectacle, he posited the notion of temporal surplus value. Just as
in classic Marxist surplus value, which is appropriated by owners from alienated workers who produce
more than they consume, then converted into profit which is siphoned off into the owners' pockets,
temporal surplus value (aka free time -- NNB) is enjoyed by the dominant class in the form of sumptuous feast days, tournaments,
adventure, and war.
Likewise, just as ordinary surplus value is eventually consumed by workers in
the form of commodities which they acquire with accumulated purchasing power, so temporal surplus
value is distributed in the form of leisure time that must be filled with the experiences supplied
by the culture industry.
... ... ...
And here, at the limit of life that idling alone brings into view in a nonthreatening way, we
find another kind of nested logic. Call it the two-step law of life. Rule No. 1 is tomorrow we die;
and Rule No. 2 is nobody, not even the most helpful robot, can change Rule No. 1. Enjoy!
Generally speaking, neoliberalism is a set of social, cultural, and political-economic forces that puts competition at the center
of social life. It promotes isolation and the increased level of anxiety of workers. Social insecurity (temp jobs are
now prevailing form on new jobs). In theory increased compertition creates more prosperity for the
members of the society. In reality the effect is often completely opposite. And the level of anxieties that people experice in
neoliberal society is completely destructive. If we are, first and foremost, competitive social beings, then the prospect of
failure is simply horrifying. Sucess is what define our value as social beings. As the result we are constantly
comparing ourselves to others and worrying about the ramifications of every choice, action, or relationship. Life comes insecure and
uncertain. That's a new form of slavery.
Neoliberal individualism ( aka “hyper-individualism”) that tends to focus exclusively on the human performance metrics and define
self very narrowly, in It does not value autonomy, and self-determination. Neoliberalism pits us against our peers and the rest of
the world. Other became a threat to our self-esteem, as their success is our failure. Neoliberalism pushes us constantly
calculate potential gains, losses, and risks, to be thinking about how this or that decision might or might not give us a
competitive edge over the rest of the field. To ensure our success and survival, we must play to win. Indeed, according to
neoliberalism, you are owner of your "human capital" which you need to develop. It tries to brainwash that "the buck stops
with you" In realy the majority of individuals can't control their fate in neoliberal society. Only top 1% or even 0.1% can.
moreover we are connected and dependen on broader social systems and contexts. Humans are necessarily interdependent
entities and in all societies solidarity was values very high. Not under neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism with its reckless and destructive injection of competition in the areas of society that previously for centuries
dependen on human solidarity makes our lives profoundly unstable, while simultaneously diminishing our senses of
interdependence and social connection. Its pushed us to assume way to much responsibility for our lives at same time squashing our
capacities for helping each other.
Deemphasizing the value of work now becomes a valuable defense reaction, a valuable way to escape "neoliberal mental trap",
the rat race of competing in areas where you should not complete at all (Neoliberalism):
See, here’s the thing: there’s a gigantic paradox at the heart of neoliberal culture. On one hand, as we will see, neoliberalism
presents itself as a totalizing situation where resistance and transformation seem impossible, as living in competition has come to define all
aspects of our lives.
On the other hand, though, neoliberalism’s power
over our lives is incredibly tenuous; for, as mentioned earlier, I am
convinced that most of us are yearning for a vastly different world,
one that is built upon and nurtures our interdependencies and shared
vulnerabilities, not self-enclosed individualism and living in competition.
... ... ...
To see what I am getting at, let s consider just some of the defining
features of our present neoliberal world:
The richest among us accumulate wealth at a dizzying pace, while
the vast majority lives with increasing material insecurity and
danger.
Money is allowed to flow freely across national borders, but people in search of safety and a better life are not.
We all work harder and harder, but we are not gaining ground
socially or economically.
We are all very anxious and depressed, yet countless self-help
guides and technologies promise to help us find health and
happiness.
... ... ...
Critique is ultimately about unlearning our world so that we might reconstruct it anew. Losing confidence in neoliberal
culture means being able to say no to it in the conduct of our daily lives. In these capacities for resistance, we gain
confidence that another world might actually be better, worth opening ourselves up to, worth fighting for. We begin to cultivate
what Henry Giroux calls "educated hope." Educated hope is not “a romanticized and empty” version of hope; rather, it is a form of
hope enabled by critique that “taps into our deepest experiences and longing for a life of dignity with others, a life in which
it becomes possible to imagine a future that does not mimic the present.”1'
With educated hope, our sense of who we are and of what might be possible shifts in profound ways.
The rising inequalities and anxieties associated with neoliberalism can and should be resisted.
From another angle, it's probably time to look at the IT without rose glasses and see not only datacenter
often impede company growth and stifle people initiatives, but in general, excessive deployment of information technology
(too complex software packages; Byzantine infrastructure; unpredictable, captious behavior of corporate desktops,
in fact, often diminishes workplace efficiency.
Excessive deployment of information technology
(too complex software packages; Byzantine infrastructure; unpredictable, captious behavior of corporate desktops,
in fact, often diminishes workplace efficiency.
Scientific American ("Taking Computers to Task,"
July 1997) pointed out that despite the $1 trillion spent annually across the globe,
"productivity growth measured in the seven richest nations has instead fallen precipitously
in the last 30 years ... Most of the economic growth can be explained by increased employment, trade
and production capacity. Computers' contributions, in contrast, nearly vanish in the noise..." .
This is probably not so simple, as the price of oil is the major factor in economic growth, the factor that authors
forgot to take into account, but they have a point.
Guardian also pushes "resist" meme in some older columns, before it became completely neoliberal rag. See, for example, Guerilla tactics at work (Column No. 5; Guardian, 11/12/06)
Office employees are required to sacrifice more than just their time
and energy. They're expected to yield their souls too. As early as the interview stage
it's made clear to new recruits that total commitment to the company is mandatory. This means adopting
the company ethos and believing in its "mission". It's like joining a cult.
Your employer requires your sincere devotion. Cynicism is regarded as an attitude problem, and
will result in your behavior being closely monitored. In this kind of
environment you need to disguise your contempt, otherwise everything you do will be regarded with
suspicion.
Mask your sarcasm with humor, and avoid attracting unwanted attention. In fact it's probably best
to channel all your simmering frustrations into covert
propaganda rather than risk self-incriminatory verbal outpourings.
Office propaganda wars are the business world's best kept secret.
Thousands of disenchanted employees are engaged in clandestine projects to counter the corporate
propaganda relentlessly churned out in the form of newsletters, notices, memos, staff debriefings,
team pep-talks, etc. The employer's aim is to make staff view the company goals as
all-important. The antidote to this brainwashing is ridicule and parody, which can take the form
of graffiti, stickers, fake notices, spoof emails, etc.
Ambitious, careerist types won't appreciate this subversive humor,
as it undermines their sense of self-importance. Consider these folk as your enemies
in the propaganda war. They might be your colleagues, but you don't have to socialize with them.
Taking coffee breaks together isn't mandatory – make excuses and go later when you can read a newspaper
undisturbed. But beware of being branded unsociable, as this attracts
scrutiny from the company thought-police.
You can always fake sociability. On occasions when you can't avoid your colleagues, join in the
office chit-chat. But whenever there's a choice, look for an escape route. Always keep an important-looking
document close to hand, so you can pretend to be on an urgent errand.
Performance reviews will reveal whether you've successfully concealed your "attitude problem".
If your supervisor suggests that you're not a "team-player", it means they're onto you. This means
you'll probably be sent on team-bonding courses and be press-ganged into socializing with career-driven
morons.
Avoid work through invisibility
13/11/06 | Guardian
As an office employee, you need a strategy for avoiding work – it's a requirement for job fulfillment.
If you're unlikely to become a manager, the next best way to avoid work is to become invisible. If
people can't see you, they can't pester you with work assignments.
Start becoming invisible by lowering the height of your chair and positioning your computer so
you're hidden from your boss. You might also want to build tall stacks of documents around your desk.
The next step is to be invisible in meetings. The easiest way is to not turn up. Five minutes before
a meeting starts, make sure you go as far away as possible from your desk and colleagues. You can
hide in the toilets or go for a walkabout. Nobody will notice you sneaking off – they'll be too busy
preparing for the meeting and mentally rehearsing their lines.
You probably won't be missed, but have an excuse ready in case you're asked. Be imaginative when
inventing explanations. For example, you had to go to your car because the security desk noticed
squirrels tampering with your windscreen wipers. Remember to laugh in a self-deprecating way when
you recount such stories – this is an old trick, taught to spies, for dealing with interrogation.
Once you've mastered guilt-free lying, you can progress to hard-core invisibility, otherwise known
as skiving. The best-known method is to take sick days. As with avoiding meetings, it helps to have
a set of fabrications memorized, just in case you're suddenly struck one morning with a massive disinclination
to go to work.
Plan ahead. You can use your time in the office productively by searching the web for illnesses
which sound convincing but not too obvious. Make a note of details of interesting symptoms, so you'll
at least sound as if you're making an effort to seem believable. Claiming to have a "cold" every
time will be regarded by your manager as a personal insult.
Some people have a guilty conscience about phoning in sick. The remedy is to imagine, vividly,
how you feel at work on a typical Monday morning. That should make you feel queasy. By dictionary
definition, "queasy" means ill. Therefore it's your duty to phone in sick. If you don't feel queasy
at the thought of Monday morning, then by definition there must be something wrong with you, so you
should phone in sick anyway.
Far too many people spread low morale by going to work when they don't feel like it. It's better
for you, your colleagues, and the national economy if you stay at home. Or, to put it another way:
prevention is better than cure, so phone in sick before you get ill.
We're told that getting ahead at work and reorienting our lives around our jobs will make us
happy. So why hasn't it? Many of those who work in the corporate world are constantly peppered
with questions about their " career progression ." The Internet is
saturated with
articles providing tips and tricks on how to develop a never-fail game plan for
professional development. Millions of Americans are engaged in a never-ending cycle of
résumé-padding that mimics the accumulation of Boy Scout merit badges or A's on
report cards except we never seem to get our Eagle Scout certificates or academic diplomas.
We're told to just keep going until we run out of gas or reach retirement, at which point we
fade into the peripheral oblivion of retirement communities, morning tee-times, and long
midweek lunches at beach restaurants.
The idealistic Chris McCandless in Jon Krakauer's bestselling book Into the Wild
defiantly declares, "I think careers are a 20th century invention and I don't want one." Anyone
who has spent enough time in the career hamster wheel can relate to this sentiment. Is
21st-century careerism -- with its promotion cycles, yearly feedback, and little wooden plaques
commemorating our accomplishments -- really the summit of human existence, the paramount
paradigm of human flourishing?
Michael J. Noughton, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St.
Thomas, Minnesota, and board chair for Reel Precision Manufacturing, doesn't think so. In his
Getting Work Right: Labor and Leisure in a Fragmented World , Noughton provides a
sobering statistic: approximately two thirds of employees in the United States are "either
indifferent or hostile to their work." That's not just an indicator of professional
dissatisfaction; it's economically disastrous. The same survey estimates that employee
disengagement is costing the U.S. economy "somewhere between 450-550 billion dollars
annually."
The origin of this problem, says Naughton, is an error in how Americans conceive of work and
leisure. We seem to err in one of two ways. One is to label our work as strictly a job, a
nine-to-five that pays the bills. In this paradigm, leisure is an amusement, an escape from the
drudgery of boring, purposeless labor. The other way is that we label our work as a career that
provides the essential fulfillment in our lives. Through this lens, leisure is a utility,
simply another means to serve our work. Outside of work, we exercise to maintain our health in
order to work harder and longer. We read books that help maximize our utility at work and get
ahead of our competitors. We "continue our education" largely to further our careers.
Whichever error we fall into, we inevitably end up dissatisfied. The more we view work as a
painful, boring chore, the less effective we are at it, and the more complacent and
discouraged. Our leisure activities, in turn, no matter how distracting, only compound our
sadness, because no amount of games can ever satisfy our souls. Or, if we see our meaning in
our work and leisure as only another means of increasing productivity, we inevitably burn out,
wondering, perhaps too late in life, what exactly we were working for . As Augustine
of Hippo noted, our hearts are restless for God. More recently, C.S. Lewis noted that we yearn
to be fulfilled by something that nothing in this world can satisfy. We need both our work and
our leisure to be oriented to the transcendent in order to give our lives meaning and
purpose.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that much of the labor Americans perform
isn't actually good . There are "bad goods" that are detrimental to society and human
flourishing. Naughton suggests some examples: violent video games, pornography, adultery dating
sites, cigarettes, high-octane alcohol, abortifacients, gambling, usury, certain types of
weapons, cheat sheet websites, "gentlemen's clubs," and so on. Though not as clear-cut as the
above, one might also add working for the kinds of businesses that contribute to the
impoverishment or destruction of our communities,
as Tucker Carlson has recently argued .
Why does this matter for professional satisfaction? Because if our work doesn't offer goods
and services that contribute to our communities and the common good -- and especially if we are
unable to perceive how our labor plays into that common good -- then it will fundamentally
undermine our happiness. We will perceive our work primarily in a utilitarian sense, shrugging
our shoulders and saying, "it's just a paycheck," ignoring or disregarding the fact that as
rational animals we need to feel like our efforts matter.
Economic liberalism -- at least in its purest free-market expression -- is based on a
paradigm with nominalist and utilitarian origins that promote "freedom of indifference." In
rudimentary terms, this means that we need not be interested in the moral quality of our
economic output. If we produce goods that satisfy people's wants, increasing their "utils," as
my Econ 101 professor used to say, then we are achieving business success. In this paradigm, we
desire an economy that maximizes access to free choice regardless of the content of that
choice, because the more choices we have, the more we can maximize our utils, or sensory
satisfaction.
The freedom of indifference paradigm is in contrast to a more ancient understanding of
economic and civic engagement: a freedom for excellence. In this worldview, "we are made
for something," and participation in public acts of virtue is essential both to our
own well-being and that of our society. By creating goods and services that objectively benefit
others and contributing to an order beyond the maximization of profit, we bless both ourselves
and the polis . Alternatively, goods that increase "utils" but undermine the common
good are rejected.
Returning to Naughton's distinction between work and leisure, we need to perceive the latter
not as an escape from work or a means of enhancing our work, but as a true time of rest. This
means uniting ourselves with the transcendent reality from which we originate and to which we
will return, through prayer, meditation, and worship. By practicing this kind of true leisure,
well
treated in a book by Josef Pieper , we find ourselves refreshed, and discover renewed
motivation and inspiration to contribute to the common good.
Americans are increasingly aware of the problems with Wall Street conservatism and globalist
economics. We perceive that our post-Cold War policies are hurting our nation. Naughton's
treatise on work and leisure offers the beginnings of a game plan for what might replace
them.
Casey Chalk covers religion and other issues for The American Conservative and is a
senior writer for Crisis Magazine. He has degrees in history and teaching from the University
of Virginia, and a masters in theology from Christendom College.
"... I'm a little surprised by how many people tell me they have no hobbies. It may seem a small thing, but -- at the risk of sounding grandiose -- I see it as a sign of a civilization in decline. The idea of leisure, after all, is a hard-won achievement; it presupposes that we have overcome the exigencies of brute survival. Yet here in the United States, the wealthiest country in history, we seem to have forgotten the importance of doing things solely because we enjoy them. ..."
"... But there's a deeper reason, I've come to think, that so many people don't have hobbies: We're afraid of being bad at them. Or rather, we are intimidated by the expectation -- itself a hallmark of our intensely public, performative age -- that we must actually be skilled at what we do in our free time. Our "hobbies," if that's even the word for them anymore, have become too serious, too demanding, too much an occasion to become anxious about whether you are really the person you claim to be. ..."
"... If you're a jogger, it is no longer enough to cruise around the block; you're training for the next marathon. If you're a painter, you are no longer passing a pleasant afternoon, just you, your watercolors and your water lilies; you are trying to land a gallery show or at least garner a respectable social media following. When your identity is linked to your hobby -- you're a yogi, a surfer, a rock climber -- you'd better be good at it, or else who are you? ..."
"... Lost here is the gentle pursuit of a modest competence, the doing of something just because you enjoy it, not because you are good at it. Hobbies, let me remind you, are supposed to be something different from work. But alien values like "the pursuit of excellence" have crept into and corrupted what was once the realm of leisure, leaving little room for the true amateur. The population of our country now seems divided between the semipro hobbyists (some as devoted as Olympic athletes) and those who retreat into the passive, screeny leisure that is the signature of our technological moment. ..."
"... Liberty and equality are supposed to make possible the pursuit of happiness. It would be unfortunate if we were to protect the means only to neglect the end. ..."
"... Lest this sound suspiciously like an elaborate plea for people to take more time off from work -- well, yes. Though I'd like to put the suggestion more grandly: The promise of our civilization, the point of all our labor and technological progress, is to free us from the struggle for survival and to make room for higher pursuits. ..."
I'm a little surprised by how many people tell me they have no hobbies. It may seem a small thing, but -- at the risk of sounding
grandiose -- I see it as a sign of a civilization in decline. The idea of leisure, after all, is a hard-won achievement; it presupposes
that we have overcome the exigencies of brute survival. Yet here in the United States, the wealthiest country in history, we seem
to have forgotten the importance of doing things solely because we enjoy them.
Yes, I know: We are all so very busy. Between work and family and social obligations, where are we supposed to find the time?
But there's a deeper reason, I've come to think, that so many people don't have hobbies: We're afraid of being bad at them.
Or rather, we are intimidated by the expectation -- itself a hallmark of our intensely public, performative age -- that we must actually
be skilled at what we do in our free time. Our "hobbies," if that's even the word for them anymore, have become too serious, too
demanding, too much an occasion to become anxious about whether you are really the person you claim to be.
If you're a jogger, it is no longer enough to cruise around the block; you're training for the next marathon. If you're a
painter, you are no longer passing a pleasant afternoon, just you, your watercolors and your water lilies; you are trying to land
a gallery show or at least garner a respectable social media following. When your identity is linked to your hobby -- you're a yogi,
a surfer, a rock climber -- you'd better be good at it, or else who are you?
Lost here is the gentle pursuit of a modest competence, the doing of something just because you enjoy it, not because you
are good at it. Hobbies, let me remind you, are supposed to be something different from work. But alien values like "the pursuit
of excellence" have crept into and corrupted what was once the realm of leisure, leaving little room for the true amateur. The population
of our country now seems divided between the semipro hobbyists (some as devoted as Olympic athletes) and those who retreat into the
passive, screeny leisure that is the signature of our technological moment.
I don't deny that you can derive a lot of meaning from pursuing an activity at the highest level. I would never begrudge someone
a lifetime devotion to a passion or an inborn talent. There are depths of experience that come with mastery. But there is also a
real and pure joy, a sweet, childlike delight, that comes from just learning and trying to get better. Looking back, you will find
that the best years of, say, scuba-diving or doing carpentry were those you spent on the learning curve, when there was exaltation
in the mere act of doing.
In a way that we rarely appreciate, the demands of excellence are at war with what we call freedom. For to permit yourself to
do only that which you are good at is to be trapped in a cage whose bars are not steel but self-judgment. Especially when it comes
to physical pursuits, but also with many other endeavors, most of us will be truly excellent only at whatever we started doing in
our teens. What if you decide in your 40s, as I have, that you want to learn to surf? What if you decide in your 60s that you want
to learn to speak Italian? The expectation of excellence can be stultifying.
Liberty and equality are supposed to make possible the pursuit of happiness. It would be unfortunate if we were to protect the
means only to neglect the end. A democracy, when it is working correctly, allows men and women to develop into free people; but it
falls to us as individuals to use that opportunity to find purpose, joy and contentment.
Lest this sound suspiciously like an elaborate plea for people to take more time off from work -- well, yes. Though I'd like to
put the suggestion more grandly: The promise of our civilization, the point of all our labor and technological progress, is to free
us from the struggle for survival and to make room for higher pursuits. But demanding excellence in all that we do can undermine
that; it can threaten and even destroy freedom. It steals from us one of life's greatest rewards -- the simple pleasure of doing
something you merely, but truly, enjoy.
Tim Wu ( @superwuster ) is a law professor at Columbia, the author
of "The Attention Merchants: The Epic Struggle to Get Inside Our Heads" and a contributing opinion writer. A version of this article
appears in print on Sept. 30, 2018 , on Page SR 6 of the New York edition with the headline: In Praise of Mediocrity.
"... This is probably the most innocuous manner in which your free labor adds to capitalist profit. The remainder of the film is devoted to showing far more sinister examples. ..."
"... We learn about the long hours some engineers working for a Japanese company put in just to keep pace with their workload. The company only decided to take ease up when the employees came in glassy-eyed and groggy in the morning after putting in unpaid overtime through the wee hours of the morning trying to complete a project on time. To make them more productive during normal working hours, the company cut off internet access and electricity after 7 pm. This did not stop the workers desperate to keep pace. They brought flashlights and portable routers with them and kept going. ..."
"... While engineers and computer programmers are notoriously gung-ho, other workers in more alienating occupations took other measures to get off the treadmill, namely suicide. The Japanese called this karoshi , or death by overwork. A restaurant manager forced to work 18 hour days could not take it any longer and jumped out of the upper story window of an office building. ..."
"... To subject workers to the clock's iron rule, it is necessary beforehand to make time-keeping itself an adjunct of the capitalist system. An hourglass is not suited to measuring activity in a 19 th century Manchester textile mill. ..."
"... Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him. ..."
"... If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist. ..."
"... One of the biggest breakthroughs was the time-clock that was invented only five years after the adoption of standard time globally. The two advances in capitalist control meshed together perfectly. Standard time made it possible to regulate global trade and transportation and the time-clock made it possible to regulate the human beings that produced the commodities that steamships and locomotives transported. ..."
"... When I got back to NY, I reported to my job as a database administrator at Goldman-Sachs. There, time equaled money. I wore a beeper and got used to phone calls late at night. I could put up with that but I never got used to fellow programmers glaring at me when I left at 5 pm. Like the Japanese engineers, they had a can-do spirit that came with their identification with a company I hated. Leaving aside my feelings toward the company, I had been in information systems for 20 years at that point and had put in more unpaid overtime over the years than had put in as programmers. I was at the point in life when leisure time meant a lot to me, especially when it was devoted to recruiting engineers and programmers to work in Nicaragua. ..."
"... Amazon warehouse workers are forced to pee in bottles or forego their bathroom breaks entirely because fulfillment demands are too high, according to journalist James Bloodworth, who went undercover as an Amazon worker for his book, Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain . Targets have reportedly increased exponentially, workers say in a new survey revealed over the weekend, and as result, they feel pressured and stressed to meet the new goals. ..."
Slaves to the Clock by
Louis Proyect As I have pointed out in previous reviews ,
Icarus, the New York film distributor, is far and away the most important source of
anti-capitalist documentaries. In keeping with their commitment to class struggle cinema, "Time
Thieves", their latest, hones in on the ways in which the capitalist system makes us slaves to
the clock.
When I worked at a Boston bank in the early 70s, I kept Marx's words pinned to my cubicle
wall:
The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside
himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at
home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore
not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it.
–Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
At the start of "Time Thieves", we see people of all ages at leisure enjoying themselves.
After a minute or so, we see another cross-section of humanity trudging off to work or to
school as narrator Sarah Davidson comments: "Under capitalism, time has become a resource with
a huge economic value. And those profiting from it want as much of our time as possible. They
even steal it from us."
Director Cosima Dannoritzer begins by showing the chaos that ensues when a new restaurant
billed as completely staff-less opens up. Patrons save money by preparing the meals themselves,
going one step further than the automats that enjoyed a heyday in the 30s through the 50s. In
the kitchen, it is a miracle that those conned into trying this out did not lose a finger or
suffer third-degree burns. I say conned because we soon learn that a restaurant workers union
staged the whole thing to illustrate the importance of having trained professionals doing the
work.
While this is an extreme case, how far are we from Jeff Bezos's automated version of Whole
Foods when all you need is a smartphone and the willingness to do the work that clerks usually
do but without pay? I got my first taste of this workerless future when I went to see
Tarantino's latest at a multiplex on West 23 rd Street. There were only
ticket-dispensing machines in the lobby that looked like ATMs. It might have saved me standing
in a line to buy a ticket but I wasn't getting paid for my labor, as minimal as it was.
This is probably the most innocuous manner in which your free labor adds to capitalist
profit. The remainder of the film is devoted to showing far more sinister examples.
We learn about the long hours some engineers working for a Japanese company put in just to
keep pace with their workload. The company only decided to take ease up when the employees came
in glassy-eyed and groggy in the morning after putting in unpaid overtime through the wee hours
of the morning trying to complete a project on time. To make them more productive during normal
working hours, the company cut off internet access and electricity after 7 pm. This did not
stop the workers desperate to keep pace. They brought flashlights and portable routers with
them and kept going.
While engineers and computer programmers are notoriously gung-ho, other workers in more
alienating occupations took other measures to get off the treadmill, namely suicide. The
Japanese called this karoshi , or death by overwork. A restaurant manager forced to work
18 hour days could not take it any longer and jumped out of the upper story window of an office
building.
We meet immigrant poultry workers in the USA who were in constant surveillance every minute
on the job, including being seen on CCTV on their way to a bathroom, where their minutes were
closely monitored. This was part of a production system that was engineered to keep both
workers and the animals they slaughtered as tightly controlled as those in Fritz Lang's
"Metropolis", a film way ahead of its time.
To subject workers to the clock's iron rule, it is necessary beforehand to make time-keeping
itself an adjunct of the capitalist system. An hourglass is not suited to measuring activity in
a 19 th century Manchester textile mill.
Among the experts, we hear from in this eye-opening documentary is Robert Levine, the author
of "A Geography of Time". He points out that standard time did not exist until 1883. Different
cities had their own timeframes. This did not matter much to those living in a particular city
but as cross-country or cross-oceanic transportation systems became the norm as capitalism
developed, it was an obstacle to predictable and efficient outcomes. In one case, a train
departing from Chicago crashed into one departing from New York on a section of track that only
allowed one-way traffic coordinated through telegraph communications. In one particularly bad
year, there were 180 such crashes. As part of the film's narrative power, we see archival
footage of the aftermath of one.
Eventually, there was a recognition that time had to be standardized globally. The Eiffel
Tower beamed a signal that the day had started at 12:00 am globally and local participants in
this system recorded it on a "time ball" that was visible throughout a city. You can see still
one at the Titanic Memorial, a lighthouse at the intersection of Fulton and Pearl in lower
Manhattan.
Today, time management is done through atomic clocks that are accurate to the millionth of a
second.
In Chapter 10 of Capital, titled "The Working Day", Marx describes the importance of
controlling the time workers spent in the hellish textile mills of his age.
Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives
the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time
during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him.
If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist.
As the decades advanced from the time Marx wrote these words, the bourgeoisie invested
heavily in "scientific" methods that could sharpen the fangs of the vampire.
One of the biggest breakthroughs was the time-clock that was invented only five years after
the adoption of standard time globally. The two advances in capitalist control meshed together
perfectly. Standard time made it possible to regulate global trade and transportation and the
time-clock made it possible to regulate the human beings that produced the commodities that
steamships and locomotives transported.
The bosses were always looking for ways to make workers even more like robots. It was up to
Frank and Lilian Gilbreth to come up with methods that have become universal in mass production
today, even to the point of making Amazon warehouse workers feel like they are in the 9
th circle of hell. They were "efficiency experts" whose research into time-motion
resulted in productivity gains for the boss even if it left workers with carpal tunnel
syndrome, shattered nerves, bloody accidents and all the rest. The Gilbreths only hoped to
reduce extraneous motions through ergonomically designed workspaces but the capitalists who
introduced their methods never considered the need for allowing the workers to carry out a task
in a reasonable amount of time. If you've seen Charlie Chaplin walking maniacally down the
street with a monkey wrench in each hand trying to tighten the buttons on a woman's dress in
"Modern Times", you'll get an idea of the effects that time-motion studies can produce.
I am sure that if you see "Time Thieves", you'll be reminded of how these things come into
play wherever you live. In the late 1980s, I made a couple of trips to Nicaragua to do a needs
assessment for Tecnica, the technical aid project to aid the Sandinistas. If we set up a
meeting for a ministry official at 10 am, we'd understand that they might be operating on
"Nicaraguan time", which meant they might show up at 10:15 or even later. They never apologized
since that was the way things worked in Nicaragua, where time-motion studies, time-clocks, etc.
never came into play in an agricultural society. Once the meeting started, however, they were
as serious as a heart attack as Michael Urmann, the founder of Tecnica, used to say.
When I got back to NY, I reported to my job as a database administrator at Goldman-Sachs.
There, time equaled money. I wore a beeper and got used to phone calls late at night. I could
put up with that but I never got used to fellow programmers glaring at me when I left at 5 pm.
Like the Japanese engineers, they had a can-do spirit that came with their identification with
a company I hated. Leaving aside my feelings toward the company, I had been in information
systems for 20 years at that point and had put in more unpaid overtime over the years than had
put in as programmers. I was at the point in life when leisure time meant a lot to me,
especially when it was devoted to recruiting engineers and programmers to work in
Nicaragua.
In 1967, E.P. Thompson wrote an article for the journal "Past and Present" titled "
Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism " that thankfully can be read here. It
provides a sweeping historical overview on how we ended up on this treadmill.
To start with, pre-class societies had a different understanding of time that we do. The
Nuers of Ethiopia, a nomadic cattle-raising people, have a "cattle clock", the round of
pastoral tasks that define their day. The Nandi people of Kenya, who also are nomadic
cattle-raisers, break down their day into half-hours with 5-5:30 am understood as when oxen go
off to graze, 7-7:30 am for the goats going to graze, etc. The Cross River natives of Nigeria
were reported to say things like "the man died in less than the time in which maize is not yet
completely roasted." (Less than 15 minutes).
Fast forward to the 18 th century and everything has changed, at least where the
peasants have been turned into proletarians as a result of the Enclosure Act or, in Africa,
simply forcing men and women into mines and plantations at gunpoint.
In England, it was where time thievery was most advanced. The man who owned Crowley Iron
Works found it necessary in 1700 to write a 100,000-word in-house penal code to keep the
workers in line.
From Order 40:
I having by sundry people working by the day with the connivence of the clerks been
horribly cheated and paid for much more time than in good conscience I ought and such hath
been the baseness & treachery of sundry clerks that they have concealed the sloath &
negligence of those paid by the day .
From Order 103:
Some have pretended a sort of right to loyter, thinking by their readiness and ability to
do sufficient in less time than others. Others have been so foolish to think bare attendance
without being imployed in business is sufficient . Others so impudent as to glory in their
villany and upbrade others for their diligence .
To the end that sloath and villany should be detected and the just and diligent rewarded,
I have thought meet to create an account of time by a Monitor, and do order and it is hereby
ordered and declared from 5 to 8 and from 7 to Io is fifteen hours, out of which take i? for
breakfast, dinner, etc. There will then be thirteen hours and a half neat service .
Not much has changed by the evidence of the Amazon warehouse:
Amazon warehouse workers are forced to pee in bottles or forego their bathroom breaks
entirely because fulfillment demands are too high, according to journalist James Bloodworth,
who went undercover as an Amazon worker for his book,
Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain . Targets have reportedly increased
exponentially, workers say in a
new survey revealed over the weekend, and as result, they feel pressured and stressed to
meet the new goals.
"Time Thieves" is essential viewing to understand how all this came to pass. Currently, the
film is being marketed to institutions like universities and libraries according to Icarus . I urge those in a position to make
such a purchase to do so since the film will be of great value to sociology and political
science students trying to develop a class analysis of a society turned to rot. Perhaps the
film will become available eventually on Ovid ,
a consortium of distributors of such films that includes Icarus. Ovid is a very reasonably
priced streaming service for documentaries, foreign-language films and indie productions that
would be of keen interest to CounterPunchers. I have reviewed many of the films that can be
rented there over the years and couldn't recommend them more highly. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Louis Proyect
Louis Proyect blogs at http://louisproyect.org and is the moderator of the Marxism
mailing list. In his spare time, he reviews films for CounterPunch.
"... " Idleness so called, which does not consist in doing nothing, but in doing a great deal not recognized in the dogmatic formularies of the ruling class, has as good a right to state its position as industry itself. It is admitted that the presence of people who refuse to enter in the great handicap race for sixpenny pieces, is at once an insult and a disenchantment for those who do." -- from An Apology For Idlers by Robert Louis Stevenson ..."
"... The Palo Alto revolution led directly to our identity-based consumer culture, where atomistic nodes imagine themselves as anything they want to be, while at the same time being nudged, counted, quantified, and exploited in ways that have come to feel natural. ..."
"... In this sense, the internet was always fated to be more of a cross between gnosticism and finance rather than individualism and liberty. ..."
"... It's easy to say that it was a lie from the very beginning, but there are identifiable reasons why the dream of nonstop dialogue and fascinating conversation with time to "lean and loaf," as Whitman wrote, failed to realize itself. ..."
"... We've all experienced online over-saturation. It's the reason there's a sign hanging in my four-month-old daughter's pediatrician's office suggesting only two hours of "screen time" per day. ..."
"... As New School professor Dominic Pettman writes in his book Infinite Distraction , the internet tends to isolate us into niche, hyper-modulated experiences ..."
"... What the internet does is lodge us into tribal stalls in which we only interact (mediated through a screen, of course) with people who think and talk just like us. It's a breakdown into homogenous online tribes, and this disintegration of common culture based on a modicum of forced heterogeneity also means the death knell of the counterculture. You can't have a counterculture if there is no primary culture to counter, so to speak. ..."
"... "An attention economy dissolves the separation between the personal and the professional, between entertainment and information, all overridden by a compulsory functionality of communication that is inherently and inescapably 24/7." ..."
"... And most importantly, are young people even interested in that sort of autonomy anymore? Perhaps the most disturbing thing about my generation is how we've defined rebellion down, blurring its edges and oversimplifying it so it somehow still collates with online exposure. Millions of preening young people, posturing for one another, with no gesture unquantifiable and nothing learned that the algorithm hasn't taught them. ..."
"... Watching it now, though, you can't help but feel that we've traded older, deeper notions of freedom for a frenzied simulacrum of autonomy and monetized attention spans. ..."
"... Here’s how I read the failure of the internet: free enterprise killed it. The internet died when people started to be paid, full time, to create what was on it. Once that began, the rest was inevitable. Prior to its commercialization, which many early “netizens” fiercely resisted for precisely these reasons, the only things to be found online were labors of love and interest done by amateurs in the time a lone amateur has available to them. ..."
"... What killed the internet was the almighty dollar that those who will stop at nothing to pursue it. Nothing more, nothing less. ..."
"... It’s a different person that waits 3 minutes for a forum to load on a 28K connection and learns HTML to format their posts than the person who loads Facebook in 15 seconds and bangs out their political opinion in text message shorthand. ..."
"... We used to think of the internet as a special place like a fancy restaurant. Now the internet is just the Burger King built into the side of a Flying J that you stop at in your stained sweatpants to grab fries. ..."
" Idleness so called, which does not consist in doing nothing, but in doing a great deal
not recognized in the dogmatic formularies of the ruling class, has as good a right to state
its position as industry itself. It is admitted that the presence of people who refuse to enter
in the great handicap race for sixpenny pieces, is at once an insult and a disenchantment for
those who do." -- from An Apology For Idlers by Robert Louis Stevenson
I was born in 1983, just months after Time awarded Person of the Year to the
computer. What that means is I'm an "Old Millennial," young enough to meme but old enough to
have experienced a childhood lived largely offline and totally cell phone free. It was the
perfect internet saturation point. I had web access, for instance, but it was dial-up and
accessible solely on our shared family PC, which meant that if I was "surfing the web,"
everyone in my house was aware of it. I couldn't just stay online all day. People needed to use
the phone, and besides, there weren't all that many sites to check out anyway.
Being online still had an allure of the new. It still crackled with the promise of an
artificial paradise. It was a dream that hadn't yet been ruined by the banal realities of
constant connectivity. We still believed that the world wide web would be the digital hub of an
entire global village where ideas would be disseminated and shared, largely free of corporate
or government control. It was to be a neutral dream space where the best and most fascinating
parts of culture would form a wonderful chorus of voices harmonizing in a shared spirit of
openness. The dream failed, of course. What we got instead was something more resembling
gambling addiction: loneliness, psychological maladies, cyberbullying, and lots and lots of
pornography. But for a kid like me, growing up in the Midwestern suburbs and hungry for contact
with a larger world full of strange and interesting people, the internet's dream that failed
resembled the trailer
for Richard Linklater's film Slacker .
The connection between the failed promises of the internet and Linklater's film, which was
shot 30 years ago this year (but not released until 1991), might not be obvious at first
glance. Slacker is unfortunately one of those late '80s/early '90s cultural effluvia
that got marketed to the masses as something it wasn't. Balled up with the early '90s
countercultural gold rush -- Grunge, Liquid Television, Quentin Tarantino, etc. -- its formal
ingenuity and big heart were mostly overlooked. The film itself is easy to describe. Largely
eschewing traditional narrative structures, the camera moves from character to character in a
series of long and meandering shots in which the bohemian elements of Austin, Texas, go about
their day. Visually, it has a lot in common with Jim Jarmusch's early films like Permanent
Vacation and Down By Law , but with a lot less ironic hipster posturing. There's a
radical sense of freedom in Linklater's camera, celebrating the monologues and awkward
conversation of Austin's eccentrics with a democratic large-heartedness that's Whitmanesque in
its openness. Everyone is given their due, even the guy who claims that we've been on the moon
since the '50s. Even the pinball-playing security guard. Even the anarchist professor. Even the
young man who breaks into his home to rob him.
Of course, Slacker is about a place. It's about a specific street, in fact. The film
was mostly shot on the eight blocks or so of Guadalupe Street, which skirt the University of
Texas campus in downtown Austin. It's a place, as James L. Haley writes in the officially
published screenplay, full of "space cadets, goonballs, punk groupies, gently aging
iconoclasts, coffee-shop feminists-gone-'round-the-bend, conspiracy dweebs luring in used-book
stores, artists, anti-artists, and a whole purgatory of other refugees from the world of
productive sanity." What makes (or should I say "made," since the very tech world I'm
criticizing has pretty much cannibalized the Slacker cast of characters and monetized
their lifestyles) Austin such a wonderful pressure cooker for the counterculture type is the
unique confluences of higher education, state government, and the mental hospital. In Austin,
these three elements blend, blur, and mix freely.
And perhaps not more than a little ironically, these are also the three elements from which
the early internet and online culture sprang. Begin with some ARPANET, add a little
Defense-funded university research and quasi-countercultural notions of freedom, and you have
the basic building blocks of what would become the internet. But even from its inception, the
revolution in the lab was markedly different from what was happening in the streets. As Elliot
Neaman writes in his book Free Radicals , "There were actually at least two
countercultures in 1968. The street mutineers dreamed of a political revolution, which was
acted out as theater, using old scripts. In the second, politics became personal; emancipation
came in the form of consumer choices. The first was collectivist and failed, the second was
libertarian, individualistic, futuristic, and carried the day."
"Libertarian" to a point, of course. The specter of total control via the internet was never
far below the surface, and "individualism" became more of an advertising line than something
deeply felt or pursued. The Palo Alto revolution led directly to our identity-based
consumer culture, where atomistic nodes imagine themselves as anything they want to be, while
at the same time being nudged, counted, quantified, and exploited in ways that have come to
feel natural.
In this sense, the internet was always fated to be more of a cross between gnosticism
and finance rather than individualism and liberty.
It's easy to say that it was a lie from the very beginning, but there are identifiable
reasons why the dream of nonstop dialogue and fascinating conversation with time to "lean and
loaf," as Whitman wrote, failed to realize itself. Two forces, both countervailing and
moving in seemingly opposite directions, made it impossible to digitize the Slacker
experience: online over-saturation and the breakdown of the internet into a series of "micro
experiences."
The first is obvious. We've all experienced online over-saturation. It's the reason
there's a sign hanging in my four-month-old daughter's pediatrician's office suggesting only
two hours of "screen time" per day. It's the reason people no longer know how to
read maps or
buy stamps . The internet has become more than an option -- it's how we think about the
world and what we know within it. It's made itself necessary for the most anodyne and common of
activities. That ubiquity might suggest a total conformity of thought and feeling, but the
opposite is actually true. As New School professor Dominic Pettman writes in his book
Infinite Distraction , the internet tends to isolate us into niche, hyper-modulated
experiences . There's a certain amount of heterogeneity that you have to deal with in the
real world, something that Slacker beautifully showcases. All the characters are
misfits, but they're wildly different from one another. What the internet does is lodge us
into tribal stalls in which we only interact (mediated through a screen, of course) with people
who think and talk just like us. It's a breakdown into homogenous online tribes, and this
disintegration of common culture based on a modicum of forced heterogeneity also means the
death knell of the counterculture. You can't have a counterculture if there is no primary
culture to counter, so to speak.
Something else we've lost is the Slacker ability to slack. The internet presents
itself as quasi-entertainment, all the time, even if what you're doing is monetized, tracked,
and encouraging of further quantifiable interaction. Simply put, it is no longer a giant, free
hub of interaction. Instead, it's the most efficient way business has to colonize our attention
and monetize our daily lives. As Jonathan Crary writes in his fantastic book 24/7 ,
"Billions of dollars are spent every year researching how to reduce decision-making time, how
to reduce the useless time of reflection and contemplation. This is the form of contemporary
progress -- the relentless capture and control of time and experience." He continues, "An
attention economy dissolves the separation between the personal and the professional, between
entertainment and information, all overridden by a compulsory functionality of communication
that is inherently and inescapably 24/7."
Having so much of our experiences forced online means that most of our lives are inescapably
subject to the quantify/monetize logos . Could one wander, unnoticed, along the fringes
of society if one wanted to? Is it even possible to work half-ass at a McJob in order to spend
your free time reading Maldoror out of the line of sight of someone trying to make a
buck off of you? And most importantly, are young people even interested in that sort of
autonomy anymore? Perhaps the most disturbing thing about my generation is how we've defined
rebellion down, blurring its edges and oversimplifying it so it somehow still collates with
online exposure. Millions of preening young people, posturing for one another, with no gesture
unquantifiable and nothing learned that the algorithm hasn't taught them.
For me, Slacker is a melancholy artifact of what we've lost over the last 30 years.
It's still recognizable in many ways. People continue to fret over climate change and analyze
pop culture to death like the characters in the film do. Watching it now, though, you can't
help but feel that we've traded older, deeper notions of freedom for a frenzied simulacrum of
autonomy and monetized attention spans.
Scott Beauchamp's work has appeared in
the Paris Review, Bookforum, and Public Discourse, among other places. His book Did You Kill
Anyone? is forthcoming from Zero Books. He lives in Maine.
I was born before you, in the early 70s, and was there from the start as a geeky technology
kid prodigy. I had a UUCP node starting in the early ’80s and email addresses when
email started using bang-path-smarthost hybrids to leverage the newfangled DNS system for
faster delivery.
Here’s how I read the failure of the internet: free enterprise killed it. The
internet died when people started to be paid, full time, to create what was on it. Once that
began, the rest was inevitable. Prior to its commercialization, which many early
“netizens” fiercely resisted for precisely these reasons, the only things to be
found online were labors of love and interest done by amateurs in the time a lone amateur has
available to them.
It was the content specialist and the online application builder and the digital marketer
who buried “Lena’s World of Ferns” beneath layers and layers of mindless
sludge. It’s the same mindless sludge that was previously at the malls and the checkout
counter newsstands, just moved online.
I suppose it was inevitable that as soon as there were people there, hucksters began to
see dollar signs, but it’s still sad. Because the early internet—the amateur
internet—was beautiful and engaging and fascinating and personal, and led to real life
friendships as often as not.
What killed the internet was the almighty dollar that those who will stop at nothing to
pursue it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’m 34, so I too am an “old millennial”. I shared a similar childhood
growing up in the upper south/lower mid-west; though I wasn’t in the suburbs I was in
the middle of nowhere- AOL was my connection to the world that I couldn’t get
otherwise. I couldn’t ride my bike to my best friends house on a summer
afternoon–it was a three mile ride on a busy two-lane highway—but we could chat
on AIM.
Much to the chagrin of anyone who attempted to call the house I spent hours online in
the summer. I was talking to a co-worker who is a bit older than me about this the other day.
Back then the internet was a smaller place. It wasn’t easily accessible for everyone
with a phone, there weren’t apps designed to walk even the most technophobic person
through posting their opinions, there weren’t social media platforms where people
stayed connected 24/7. Going online was still something you did: you went online, then you
went offline.
When you interacted with people online the odds were pretty favorable that they
were in roughly the same age range, they were tech savvy, and if you were interacting on a
forum then you probably had a similar interest. Everyone was just better to each other online
back then and I really think it’s because we were all pretty much the same type of
person.
It’s a different person that waits 3 minutes for a forum to load on a 28K
connection and learns HTML to format their posts than the person who loads Facebook in 15
seconds and bangs out their political opinion in text message shorthand.
We used to think of
the internet as a special place like a fancy restaurant. Now the internet is just the Burger
King built into the side of a Flying J that you stop at in your stained sweatpants to grab
fries.
Could it be that I’m just getting old? Can I just blame it all on Gen Z and be done
with it? Gen Z killed the internet!
Slacker was a lot funnier, better written and more interesting when Linklater did it again 8
years later with the weird rotoscoping half animation, half live action in Waking Life with
the skinny kid from Dazed and Confused.
I was born in ’76 and my freshman year at UT Austin was in ’94. It was a really
cool time, because most of the world still didn’t care all that much about what was
going on in Austin, Texas. There were great independent radio stations, live music happening
everywhere and packed record stores where discovering a new band/musician was a communal
experience that required interacting with other human beings. Those were the days when people
stood around in front of cd and record player listening stations to check it out before you
bought something.
People were up all night smoking in the coffee shops, reading and debating with each other
along the drag (Guadalupe). Across the street was the main computer lab, where you went if
you wanted to use the Internet for free.
After I graduated, I left Austin for a professional degree and then work. For many years I
longed to get back there. When I finally did in 2012, it was so overrun with moneyed hipsters
that I left again after a couple of years. Maybe I’m just middle aged and jaded now,
but the vibe in Austin feels to me like a packaged authenticity being sold by the real estate
developers to move as many human beings as possible to Central Texas. Time marches on.
If you reverse the last two digits of your birth year, you’ll have mine. So I was
raised before television (if you want to talk about monetizing consumption). But I think much
of what you say makes sense, and I thought you wrote it very well.
The New York Times has an
illuminating article today summarizing recent research on the gender effects of
mandatory overwork in professional jobs. Lawyers, people in finance and other
client-centered occupations are increasingly required to be available round-the-clock, with
50-60 or more hours of work per week the norm. Among other costs, the impact on wage inequality
between men and women is severe. Since women are largely saddled with primary responsibility
for child care, even when couples ostensibly embrace equality on a theoretical level, the
workaholic jobs are allocated to men. This shows up in dramatic differences between typical
male and female career paths. The article doesn't discuss comparable issues in working class
employment, but availability for last-minute changes in work schedules and similar demands are
likely to impact men and women differentially as well.
What the article doesn't point out is that the situation it describes is a classic prisoners
dilemma.* Consider law firms. They compete for clients, and clients prefer attorneys who are
available on call, always prepared and willing to adjust to whatever schedule the client throws
at them. Assume that most lawyers want sane, predictable work hours if they are offered without
a severe penalty in pay. If law firms care about the well-being of their employees but also
about profits, we have all the ingredients to construct a standard PD payoff matrix:
There is a penalty to unilateral cooperation, cutting work hours back to a work-life balance
level. If your firm does it and the others don't, you lose clients to them.
There is a benefit to unilateral defection. If everyone else is cutting hours but you don't,
you scoop up the lion's share of the clients.
Mutual cooperation is preferred to mutual defection. Law firms, we are assuming, would
prefer a world in which overwork was removed from the contest for competitive advantage. They
would compete for clients as before, but none would require their staff to put in soul-crushing
hours. The alternative equilibrium, in which competition is still on the basis of the quality
of work but everyone is on call 24/7 is inferior.
If the game is played once, mutual defection dominates. If it is played repeatedly there is
a possibility for mutual cooperation to establish itself, but only under favorable conditions
(which apparently don't exist in the world of NY law firms). The logical solution is some
form of binding regulation.
The reason for bringing this up is that it strengthens the case for collective action rather
than placing all the responsibility on individuals caught in the system, including for that
matter individual law firms. Or, the responsibility is political, to demand constraints on the
entire industry. One place to start would be something like France's
right-to-disconnect law .
*I haven't read the studies by economists and sociologists cited in the article, but I
suspect many of them make the same point I'm making here.
"... Here's a fair question: Is there anything wrong with hard, even obsessive, work? ..."
"... But our desks were never meant to be our altars. The modern labor force evolved to serve the needs of consumers and capitalists, not to satisfy tens of millions of people seeking transcendence at the office. ..."
"... This mismatch between expectations and reality is a recipe for severe disappointment, if not outright misery, and it might explain why rates of depression and anxiety in the U.S. are "substantially higher" than they were in the 1980s, according to a 2014 study . ..."
"... they would spare the vast majority of the public from the pathological workaholism that grips today's elites, and perhaps create a bottom-up movement to displace work as the centerpiece of the secular American identity. ..."
For the college-educated elite, work has morphed into a religious
identity -- promising identity, transcendence, and community, but failing to deliver.
I
n his 1930 essay
"Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," the
economist John Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour workweek in the 21st century, creating the equivalent of a five-day
weekend. "For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem," Keynes wrote,
"how to occupy the leisure."
This became a popular view. In a 1957
article
in
The New York Times
, the writer Erik Barnouw
predicted
that, as work became easier, our identity would be defined by our hobbies, or our family life. "The
increasingly automatic nature of many jobs, coupled with the shortening work week [leads] an increasing number of
workers to look not to work but to leisure for satisfaction, meaning, expression," he wrote.
These post-work predictions weren't entirely wrong. By some counts, Americans work much less than they used to. The
average work year has shrunk by
more than 200 hours
. But those figures don't tell the whole story. Rich, college-educated people -- especially men -- work
more than they did many decades ago. They are reared from their teenage years to make their passion their career and, if
they don't have a calling, told not to yield until they find one.
Read: "Find your passion" is awful advice
The economists of the
early 20th century did not foresee that work might evolve from a means of material production to a means of identity
production. They failed to anticipate that, for the poor and middle class, work would remain a necessity; but for the
college-educated elite, it would morph into a kind of religion, promising identity, transcendence, and community. Call
it workism.
1. THE GOSPEL OF WORK
The decline of traditional faith in America has coincided with an explosion of
new atheisms
. Some people worship
beauty
, some worship
political identities
, and others worship their children. But
everybody worships something
. And workism is among the most potent of the new religions competing for congregants.
What is workism? It is the belief that work is not only necessary to economic production, but also the centerpiece of
one's identity and life's purpose; and the belief that any policy to promote human welfare must
always
encourage more work.
Homo industrious
is not new to the American landscape. The American dream -- that hoary mythology that hard
work always guarantees upward mobility -- has for more than a century made the U.S. obsessed with material success and the
exhaustive striving required to earn it.
No large country
in the world as productive as the United States averages more hours of work a year. And the gap
between the U.S. and other countries is growing. Between 1950 and 2012, annual hours worked per employee fell by about
40 percent in Germany and the Netherlands -- but by only 10 percent in the United States. Americans "work longer hours,
have shorter vacations, get less in unemployment, disability, and retirement benefits, and retire later, than people in
comparably rich societies," wrote Samuel P. Huntington in his 2005 book
Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity
.
One group has led the widening of the workist gap: rich men.
In 1980, the highest-earning men actually worked fewer hours per week than middle-class and low-income men, according
to a survey by the
Minneapolis Fed
. But that's changed. By 2005, the richest 10 percent of married men had the
longest
average
workweek. In that same time, college-educated men reduced their leisure time
more than any other group
. Today, it is fair to say that elite American men have transformed themselves into
the world's premier workaholics
, toiling longer hours than both poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in similarly
rich countries.
This shift defies economic logic -- and economic history. The rich have always worked less than the poor, because they
could afford to.
The landed gentry of preindustrial Europe
dined, danced, and gossiped, while serfs toiled without end. In the early
20th century, rich Americans used their ample downtime to buy weekly movie tickets and
dabble in sports
. Today's rich American men can afford vastly more downtime. But they have used their wealth to buy
the strangest of prizes: more work!
Perhaps long hours are part of an arms race for status and income among the moneyed elite. Or maybe the logic here
isn't economic at all. It's emotional -- even spiritual. The best-educated and highest-earning Americans, who can have
whatever they want, have chosen the office for the same reason that devout Christians attend church on Sundays: It's
where they feel most themselves. "For many of today's rich there is no such thing as 'leisure'; in the classic
sense -- work is their play," the economist Robert Frank
wrote
in
The
Wall Street Journal
. "Building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest
thing they have to fun."
Workism may have started with rich men, but the ethos is spreading -- across gender and age. In a
2018 paper
on elite universities, researchers found that for women, the most important benefit of attending a
selective college isn't higher wages, but more hours at the office. In other words, our elite institutions are minting
coed workists. What's more, in a recent Pew Research report on the epidemic of youth anxiety, 95 percent of teens
said
"having a job or career they enjoy" would be "extremely or very important" to them as an adult. This ranked
higher than any other priority, including "helping other people who are in need" (81 percent) or getting married (47
percent). Finding meaning at work beats family and kindness as the top ambition of today's young people.
Even as Americans worship workism, its leaders consecrate it from the marble daises of Congress and enshrine it in
law.
Most
advanced countries give new parents paid leave; but the United States guarantees no such thing. Many advanced
countries ease the burden of parenthood with national policies; but U.S.
public spending
on child care and early education is near the bottom of international rankings. In most advanced
countries, citizens are guaranteed access to health care by their government; but the
majority of insured Americans
get health care through -- where else? -- their workplace. Automation and AI may soon
threaten the labor force, but America's welfare system has become more work-based in the past 20 years. In 1996,
President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which replaced much
of the existing welfare system with programs that made benefits contingent on the recipient's employment.
The religion of work isn't just a cultist feature of America's elite. It's also the law.
Here's a fair
question: Is there anything wrong with hard, even
obsessive, work?
Humankind has not yet invented itself out of labor. Machine intelligence isn't ready to run the world's factories, or
care for the sick. In every advanced economy, most prime-age people who can work
do
-- and in poorer countries,
the average workweek is even longer than in the United States. Without work, including nonsalaried labor like raising a
child, most people tend to feel miserable. Some evidence
suggests
that long-term unemployment is even more wrenching than losing a loved one, since the absence of an
engaging distraction removes the very thing that tends to provide solace to mourners in the first place.
There is nothing wrong
with work, when work must be done. And there is no question that an elite obsession with meaningful work will produce a
handful of winners who hit the workist lottery: busy, rich, and deeply fulfilled. But a culture that funnels its dreams
of self-actualization into salaried jobs is setting itself up for collective anxiety, mass disappointment, and
inevitable burnout
.
In the past century, the American conception of work has shifted from
jobs
to
careers
to
callings
-- from necessity to status to meaning. In an agrarian or early-manufacturing economy, where tens of millions
of people perform similar routinized tasks, there are no delusions about the higher purpose of, say, planting corn or
screwing bolts: It's just a job.
The rise of the professional class and corporate bureaucracies in the early 20th century created the modern journey
of a career, a narrative arc bending toward a set of precious initials: VP, SVP, CEO. The upshot is that for today's
workists, anything short of finding one's vocational soul mate means a wasted life.
"We've created this idea that the meaning of life should be found in work," says Oren Cass, the author of the book
The Once and Future Worker
. "We tell young people that their work should be their passion. 'Don't give up until
you find a job that you love!' we say. 'You should be changing the world!' we tell them. That is the message in
commencement addresses, in pop culture, and frankly, in media, including
The Atlantic
."
But our desks were never meant to be our altars. The modern labor force evolved to serve the needs of consumers and
capitalists, not to satisfy tens of millions of people seeking transcendence at the office. It's hard to self-actualize
on the job if you're a cashier -- one of the most common occupations in the U.S. -- and even the best white-collar roles have
long periods of stasis, boredom, or busywork. This mismatch between expectations and reality is a recipe for severe
disappointment, if not outright misery, and it might explain why rates of depression and anxiety in the U.S. are
"substantially higher" than they were in the 1980s, according to
a 2014 study
.
One of the benefits of being an observant Christian, Muslim, or Zoroastrian is that these God-fearing worshippers put
their faith in an intangible and unfalsifiable force of goodness. But work is tangible, and success is often falsified.
To make either the centerpiece of one's life is to place one's esteem in the mercurial hands of the market. To be a
workist is to worship a god with firing power.
2.
THE MILLENNIAL WORKIST
The Millennial generation -- born in the past two decades of the 20th century -- came of age in the roaring 1990s, when
workism coursed through the veins of American society. On the West Coast, the modern tech sector emerged, minting
millionaires who combined utopian dreams with a do-what-you-love ethos. On the East Coast, President Clinton grabbed the
neoliberal baton from Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and signed laws that made work the nucleus of welfare policy.
As Anne Helen Petersen
wrote in a viral
essay
on "Millennial burnout" for
BuzzFeed News
-- building on ideas Malcolm Harris addressed in his book,
Kids These Days
-- Millennials were honed in these decades into machines of self-optimization. They passed
through a childhood of extracurricular overachievement and checked every box of the success sequence, only to have the
economy blow up their dreams.
While it's inadvisable to paint 85 million people with the same brush, it's fair to say that American Millennials
have been collectively defined by two external traumas. The first is student debt. Millennials are the most educated
generation ever, a distinction that should have made them rich and secure. But rising educational attainment has come at
a steep price. Since 2007, outstanding student debt has grown by almost $1 trillion, roughly tripling in just 12 years.
And since the economy cratered in 2008, average wages for young graduates have stagnated -- making it even harder to pay
off loans.
The second external trauma of the Millennial generation has been the disturbance of social media, which has amplified
the pressure to craft an image of success -- for oneself, for one's friends and colleagues, and even for one's parents. But
literally
visualizing
career success can be difficult in a services and information economy. Blue-collar jobs
produce tangible products, like coal, steel rods, and houses. The output of white-collar work -- algorithms, consulting
projects, programmatic advertising campaigns -- is more shapeless and often quite invisible. It's not glib to say that the
whiter the collar, the more invisible the product.
Since the physical world leaves few traces of achievement, today's workers turn to social media to make manifest
their accomplishments. Many of them spend hours crafting a separate reality of stress-free smiles, postcard vistas, and
Edison-lightbulbed working spaces. "The social media feed [is] evidence of the fruits of hard, rewarding labor and the
labor itself," Petersen writes.
Among Millennial workers, it seems, overwork and "burnout" are outwardly celebrated (even if, one suspects, they're
inwardly mourned). In a recent
New York Times
essay, "
Why
Are Young People Pretending to Love Work?
," the reporter Erin Griffith pays a visit to the co-working space WeWork,
where the pillows urge
Do what you love
, and the neon signs implore workers to
hustle harder
. These dicta resonate with young workers.
As
several studies
show
, Millennials are meaning junkies at work. "Like all employees," one
Gallup
survey concluded, "millennials care about their income. But for this generation, a job is about more than a
paycheck, it's about a purpose."
The problem with this gospel --
Your dream job is out there, so never stop hustling
-- is that it's a blueprint
for spiritual and physical exhaustion. Long hours don't make anybody more productive or creative; they make people
stressed, tired and bitter
. But the overwork myths survive "because they justify the extreme wealth created for a
small group of elite techies," Griffith
writes
.
There is something slyly dystopian about an economic system that has convinced the most indebted generation in
American history to put purpose over paycheck. Indeed, if you were designing a
Black Mirror
labor force that
encouraged overwork without higher wages, what might you do? Perhaps you'd persuade educated young people that income
comes second; that no job is just a job; and that the only real reward from work is the ineffable glow of purpose. It is
a diabolical game that creates a prize so tantalizing yet rare that almost nobody wins, but everybody feels obligated to
play forever.
3. TIME FOR HAPPINESS
This is the right time for a confession. I am the very thing that I am criticizing.
I am devoted to my job. I feel most myself when I am fulfilled by my work -- including the work of writing an essay
about work. My sense of identity is so bound up in my job, my sense of accomplishment, and my feeling of productivity
that bouts of writer's block can send me into an existential funk that can spill over into every part of my life. And I
know enough writers, tech workers, marketers, artists, and entrepreneurs to know that my affliction is common,
especially within a certain tranche of the white-collar workforce.
Some workists, moreover, seem deeply fulfilled. These happy few tend to be intrinsically motivated; they don't need
to share daily evidence of their accomplishments. But maintaining the purity of internal motivations is harder in a
world where social media and mass media are so adamant about externalizing all markers of success. There's
Forbes
'
list of this, and
Fortune
's list of that; and every Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn profile is conspicuously
marked with the metrics of accomplishment -- followers, friends, viewers, retweets -- that inject all communication with the
features of competition. It may be getting harder each year for purely motivated and sincerely happy workers to opt out
of the tournament of labor swirling around them.
Workism offers a perilous trade-off. On the one hand, Americans' high regard for hard work may be responsible for its
special place in world history and its reputation as the global capital of start-up success. A culture that worships the
pursuit of extreme success will likely produce some of it. But extreme success is a falsifiable god, which rejects the
vast majority of its worshippers. Our jobs were never meant to shoulder the burdens of a faith, and they are buckling
under the weight. A staggering 87 percent of employees are not engaged at their job, according to
Gallup
. That number is rising by the year.
One solution to this epidemic of disengagement would be to make work less awful. But maybe the better prescription is
to make work less
central.
This can start with public policy. There is new enthusiasm for universal policies -- like universal basic income,
parental leave, subsidized child care, and
a child allowance
-- which would make long working hours less necessary for all Americans. These changes alone might
not be enough to reduce Americans' devotion to work for work's sake, since it's the rich who are most devoted. But they
would spare the vast majority of the public from the pathological workaholism that grips today's elites, and perhaps
create a bottom-up movement to displace work as the centerpiece of the secular American identity.
On a deeper level,
Americans have forgotten an old-fashioned goal of working: It's about buying free time. The vast majority of workers are
happier when they spend more hours with family, friends, and partners, according to
research
conducted by Ashley Whillans, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School. In one study, she
concluded that the happiest young workers were those who said around the time of their college graduation that they
preferred careers that gave them
time away from the office
to focus on their relationships and their hobbies.
How quaint that sounds. But it's the
same perspective that inspired the economist John Maynard Keynes to predict in 1930 that Americans would eventually have
five-day weekends, rather than five-day weeks. It is the belief -- the faith, even -- that work is not life's product, but its
currency. What we choose to buy with it is the ultimate project of living.
"... While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. ..."
"... Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy. ..."
"... In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism. ..."
"... We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism. ..."
"... While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."' ..."
In Chapter 1, we traced the rise of our neoliberal conjuncture back to the crisis of liberalism during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. During this period, huge transformations in capitalism proved impossible
to manage with classical laissez-faire approaches. Out of this crisis, two movements emerged, both of which would eventually shape
the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The first, and the one that became dominant in the aftermath of the crisis, was the
conjuncture of embedded liberalism. The crisis indicated that capitalism wrecked too much damage on the lives of ordinary citizens.
People (white workers and families, especially) warranted social protection from the volatilities and brutalities of capitalism.
The state's public function was expanded to include the provision of a more substantive social safety net, a web of protections for
people and a web of constraints on markets. The second response was the invention of neoliberalism. Deeply skeptical of the common-good
principles that undergirded the emerging social welfare state, neoliberals began organizing on the ground to develop a "new" liberal
govemmentality, one rooted less in laissez-faire principles and more in the generalization of competition and enterprise. They worked
to envision a new society premised on a new social ontology, that is, on new truths about the state, the market, and human beings.
Crucially, neoliberals also began building infrastructures and institutions for disseminating their new' knowledges and theories
(i.e., the Neoliberal Thought Collective), as well as organizing politically to build mass support for new policies (i.e., working
to unite anti-communists, Christian conservatives, and free marketers in common cause against the welfare state). When cracks in
embedded liberalism began to surface -- which is bound to happen with any moving political equilibrium -- neoliberals were there
with new stories and solutions, ready to make the world anew.
We are currently living through the crisis of neoliberalism. As I write this book, Donald Trump has recently secured the U.S.
presidency, prevailing in the national election over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, I couldn't
help but think back to the crisis of liberalism and the two responses that emerged. Similarly, after the Great Recession of 2008,
we've saw two responses emerge to challenge our unworkable status quo, which dispossesses so many people of vital resources for individual
and collective life. On the one hand, we witnessed the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While many continue to critique the movement for
its lack of leadership and a coherent political vision, Occupy was connected to burgeoning movements across the globe, and our current
political horizons have been undoubtedly shaped by the movement's success at repositioning class and economic inequality within our
political horizon. On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party
was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was
perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-,
it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.
Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering.
Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in
the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories of
good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election, Trump effectively
tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality, channeling political
anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism (corporate diversity,
political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie Sanders, Trump was a crisis
candidate.
Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders'
energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood"
path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy.
Universal health care. Free higher education. Fair trade. The repeal of Citizens United. Trump offered a different response to
the crisis. Like Sanders, he railed against global trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, Trump's
victory was fueled by right neoliberalism's culture of cruelty. While Sanders tapped into and mobilized desires for a more egalitarian
and democratic future, Trump's promise was nostalgic, making America "great again" -- putting the nation back on "top of the world,"
and implying a time when women were "in their place" as male property, and minorities and immigrants were controlled by the state.
Thus, what distinguished Trump's campaign from more traditional Republican campaigns was that it actively and explicitly pitted
one group's equality (white men) against everyone else's (immigrants, women, Muslims, minorities, etc.). As Catherine Rottenberg
suggests, Trump offered voters a choice between a multiracial society (where folks are increasingly disadvantaged and dispossessed)
and white supremacy (where white people would be back on top). However, "[w]hat he neglected to state," Rottenberg writes,
is that neoliberalism flourishes in societies where the playing field is already stacked against various segments of society,
and that it needs only a relatively small select group of capital-enhancing subjects, while everyone else is ultimately dispensable.
1
In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg
argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many
concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.
We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left
neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested
in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right
and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political
philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism.
While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking
with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the
chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'
Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism, put it this way:
The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness
of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately
great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under
capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.4
I think that, for the first time in the history of U.S. capitalism, the vast majority of people might sense the lie of liberal,
capitalist democracy. They feel anxious, unfree, disaffected. Fantasies of the good life have been shattered beyond repair for most
people. Trump and this hopefully brief triumph of right neoliberalism will soon lay this bare for everyone to see. Now, with Trump,
it is absolutely clear: the rich rule the world; we are all disposable; this is no democracy. The question becomes: How will we show
up for history? Will there be new stories, ideas, visions, and fantasies to attach to? How can we productively and meaningful intervene
in the crisis of neoliberalism? How can we "tear a hole in the grey curtain" and open up better worlds? How can we put what we've
learned to use and begin to imagine and build a world beyond living in competition? I hope our critical journey through the neoliberal
conjuncture has enabled you to begin to answer these questions.
More specifically, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, our common-good sensibilities have been channeled
into neoliberal platforms for social change and privatized action, funneling our political energies into brand culture and marketized
struggles for equality (e.g., charter schools, NGOs and non-profits, neoliberal antiracism and feminism). As a result, despite our
collective anger and disaffected consent, we find ourselves stuck in capitalist realism with no real alternative. Like the neoliberal
care of the self, we are trapped in a privatized mode of politics that relies on cruel optimism; we are attached, it seems, to politics
that inspire and motivate us to action, while keeping us living in competition.
To disrupt the game, we need to construct common political horizons against neoliberal hegemony. We need to use our common stories
and common reason to build common movements against precarity -- for within neoliberalism, precarity is what ultimately has the potential
to thread all of our lives together. Put differently, the ultimate fault line in the neoliberal conjiuicture is the way it subjects
us all to precarity and the biopolitics of disposability, thereby creating conditions of possibility for new coalitions across race,
gender, citizenship, sexuality, and class. Recognizing this potential for coalition in the face of precarization is the most pressing
task facing those who are yearning for a new world. The question is: How do we get there? How do we realize these coalitional potentialities
and materialize common horizons?
Ultimately, mapping the neoliberal conjuncture through everyday life in enterprise culture has not only provided some direction
in terms of what we need; it has also cultivated concrete and practical intellectual resources for political interv ention and social
interconnection -- a critical toolbox for living in common. More specifically, this book has sought to provide resources for thinking
and acting against the four Ds: resources for engaging in counter-conduct, modes of living that refuse, on one hand, to conduct one's
life according to the norm of enterprise, and on the other, to relate to others through the norm of competition. Indeed, we need
new ways of relating, interacting, and living as friends, lovers, workers, vulnerable bodies, and democratic people if we are to
write new stories, invent new govemmentalities, and build coalitions for new worlds.
Against Disimagination: Educated Hope and Affirmative Speculation
We need to stop turning inward, retreating into ourselves, and taking personal responsibility for our lives (a task which is ultimately
impossible). Enough with the disimagination machine! Let's start looking outward, not inward -- to the broader structures that undergird
our lives. Of course, we need to take care of ourselves; we must survive. But I firmly believe that we can do this in ways both big
and small, that transform neoliberal culture and its status-quo stories.
Here's the thing I tell my students all the time. You cannot escape neoliberalism. It is the air we breathe, the water in which
we swim. No job, practice of social activism, program of self-care, or relationship will be totally free from neoliberal impingements
and logics. There is no pure "outside" to get to or work from -- that's just the nature of the neoliberalism's totalizing cultural
power. But let's not forget that neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power is also a source of weakness. Potential for resistance
is everywhere, scattered throughout our everyday lives in enterprise culture. Our critical toolbox can help us identify these potentialities
and navigate and engage our conjuncture in ways that tear open up those new worlds we desire.
In other words, our critical perspective can help us move through the world with what Henry Giroux calls educated hope. Educated
hope means holding in tension the material realities of power and the contingency of history. This orientation of educated hope knows
very well what we're up against. However, in the face of seemingly totalizing power, it also knows that neoliberalism can never become
total because the future is open. Educated hope is what allows us to see the fault lines, fissures, and potentialities of the present
and emboldens us to think and work from that sliver of social space where we do have political agency and freedom to construct a
new world. Educated hope is what undoes the power of capitalist realism. It enables affirmative speculation (such as discussed in
Chapter 5), which does not try to hold the future to neoliberal horizons (that's cruel optimism!), but instead to affirm our commonalities
and the potentialities for the new worlds they signal. Affirmative speculation demands a different sort of risk calculation and management.
It senses how little we have to lose and how much we have to gain from knocking the hustle of our lives.
Against De-democratization: Organizing and Collective Coverning
We can think of educated hope and affirmative speculation as practices of what Wendy Brown calls "bare democracy" -- the basic
idea that ordinary' people like you and me should govern our lives in common, that we should critique and try to change our world,
especially the exploitative and oppressive structures of power that maintain social hierarchies and diminish lives. Neoliberal culture
works to stomp out capacities for bare democracy by transforming democratic desires and feelings into meritocratic desires and feelings.
In neoliberal culture, utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective utopian sensibilities are directed
away from the promise of collective governing to competing for equality.
We have to get back that democractic feeling! As Jeremy Gilbert taught us, disaffected consent is a post-democratic orientation.
We don't like our world, but we don't think we can do anything about it. So, how do we get back that democratic feeling? How do we
transform our disaffected consent into something new? As I suggested in the last chapter, we organize. Organizing is simply about
people coming together around a common horizon and working collectively to materialize it. In this way, organizing is based on the
idea of radical democracy, not liberal democracy. While the latter is based on formal and abstract rights guaranteed by the state,
radical democracy insists that people should directly make the decisions that impact their lives, security, and well-being. Radical
democracy is a practice of collective governing: it is about us hashing out, together in communities, what matters, and working in
common to build a world based on these new sensibilities.
The work of organizing is messy, often unsatisfying, and sometimes even scary. Organizing based on affirmative speculation and
coalition-building, furthermore, will have to be experimental and uncertain. As Lauren Berlant suggests, it means "embracing the
discomfort of affective experience in a truly open social life that no
one has ever experienced." Organizing through and for the common "requires more adaptable infrastructures. Keep forcing the existing
infrastructures to do what they don't know how to do. Make new ways to be local together, where local doesn't require a physical
neighborhood." 5 What Berlant is saying is that the work of bare democracy requires unlearning, and detaching from, our
current stories and infrastructures in order to see and make things work differently. Organizing for a new world is not easy -- and
there are no guarantees -- but it is the only way out of capitalist realism.
Getting back democratic feeling will at once require and help us lo move beyond the biopolitics of disposability and entrenched
systems of inequality. On one hand, organizing will never be enough if it is not animated by bare democracy, a sensibility that each
of us is equally important when it comes to the project of determining our lives in common. Our bodies, our hurts, our dreams, and
our desires matter regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship, and regardless of how r much capital (economic,
social, or cultural) we have. Simply put, in a radical democracy, no one is disposable. This bare-democratic sense of equality must
be foundational to organizing and coalition-building. Otherwise, we will always and inevitably fall back into a world of inequality.
On the other hand, organizing and collective governing will deepen and enhance our sensibilities and capacities for radical equality.
In this context, the kind of self-enclosed individualism that empowers and underwrites the biopolitics of disposability melts away,
as we realize the interconnectedness of our lives and just how amazing it feels to
fail, we affirm our capacities for freedom, political intervention, social interconnection, and collective social doing.
Against Dispossession: Shared Security and Common Wealth
Thinking and acting against the biopolitics of disposability goes hand-in-hand with thinking and acting against dispossession.
Ultimately, when we really understand and feel ourselves in relationships of interconnection with others, we want for them as we
want for ourselves. Our lives and sensibilities of what is good and just are rooted in radical equality, not possessive or self-appreciating
individualism. Because we desire social security and protection, we also know others desire and deserve the same.
However, to really think and act against dispossession means not only advocating for shared security and social protection, but
also for a new society that is built on the egalitarian production and distribution of social wealth that we all produce. In this
sense, we can take Marx's critique of capitalism -- that wealth is produced collectively but appropriated individually -- to heart.
Capitalism was built on the idea that one class -- the owners of the means of production -- could exploit and profit from the collective
labors of everyone else (those who do not own and thus have to work), albeit in very different ways depending on race, gender, or
citizenship. This meant that, for workers of all stripes, their lives existed not for themselves, but for others (the appropriating
class), and that regardless of what we own as consumers, we are not really free or equal in that bare-democratic sense of the word.
If we want to be really free, we need to construct new material and affective social infrastructures for our common wealth. In
these new infrastructures, wealth must not be reduced to economic value; it must be rooted in social value. Here, the production
of wealth does not exist as a separate sphere from the reproduction of our lives. In other words, new infrastructures, based on the
idea of common wealth, will not be set up to exploit our labor, dispossess our communities, or to divide our lives. Rather, they
will work to provide collective social resources and care so that we may all be free to pursue happiness, create beautiful and/or
useful things, and to realize our potential within a social world of living in common. Crucially, to create the conditions for these
new, democratic forms of freedom rooted in radical equality, we need to find ways to refuse and exit the financial networks of Empire
and the dispossessions of creditocracy, building new systems that invite everyone to participate in the ongoing production of new
worlds and the sharing of the wealth that we produce in common.
It's not up to me to tell you exactly where to look, but I assure you that potentialities for these new worlds are everywhere
around you.
There will always be an endless list of chores to complete and work to do, and a culture of
relentless productivity tells us to get to it right away and feel terribly guilty about any
time wasted. But the truth is, a life spent dutifully responding to emails is a dull one
indeed. And "wasted" time is, in fact, highly fulfilling and necessary.
Don't believe me? Take it from the creator of "Inbox Zero." As Oliver Burkeman reports
in
The Guardian , Merlin Mann was commissioned to write a book about his streamlined email
system. Two years later, he abandoned the project and instead posted a (since deleted) blog
post on how he'd spent so long focusing on how to spend time well, he'd ended up missing
valuable moments with his daughter.
The problem comes when we spend so long frantically chasing productivity, we refuse to take
real breaks. We put off sleeping in, or going for a long walk, or reading by the window -- and,
even if we do manage time away from the grind, it comes with a looming awareness of the things
we should be doing, and so the experience is weighed down by guilt.
Instead, there's a tendency to turn to the least fulfilling tendency of them all: Sitting at
our desk, in front of our computer, browsing websites and contributing to neither our happiness
nor our productivity.
"There's an idea we must always be available, work all the time," says Michael Guttridge, a
psychologist who focuses on workplace behavior. "It's hard to break out of that and go to the
park." But the downsides are obvious: We end up zoning out while at the computer -- looking for
distraction on social media, telling ourselves
we're "multitasking" while really spending far longer than necessary on the most basic
tasks.
Plus, says Guttridge, we're missing out on the mental and physical benefits of time spent
focused on ourselves. "People eat at the desk and get food on the computer -- it's disgusting.
They should go for a walk, to the coffee shop, just get away," he says. "Even Victorian
factories had some kind of rest breaks."
So the reformation followed Gutenberg. This cured many of the Church's corruptions,
but also produced turmoil (and the counter-reformation / inquisition).
A huge cultural upsurge followed the introduction of printing to the West. Note though
that the attitude of authorities to the changes that followed was often violently hostile,
and that it came at a time when profound tensions over the allotment of power, both
clerical and governmental, were just coming to fore–tensions that would ultimately
explode into a centuries-long bloodbath.
If printing had arrived three centuries earlier, or three centuries later, there's no
guarantee it would have had such a great effect on Europe's cultural development–its
impact in the Far East, where it originated, seems to have been much more limited.
It's the centripetal forces that seem to prevail in our time, not the centrifugal ones,
so I'm not sanguine about the prospects for a new Reformation and Enlightenment emerging
from the computing and telecoms revolutions.
The trend to date seems depressingly consistent: Copyright laws are refashioned into
tools to limit the spread of knowledge. Patent laws are refashioned into tools to prevent
new technologies from displacing old ones. Every time technology opens a door, authority
promptly slams it shut again.
So not that some of the results are less-than-optimum, but it's amusing to read a
blogger who writes on/for the internet to have such a dark take on technology. What would
you be doing without it?
Have you noticed, though, that he self-hosts this blog–both his own essays
and and his reader comments, NB–and refrains from using paid advertising? Just
how commonplace is that among A-list bloggers, would you say? How commonplace is that for
anyone , nowadays?
I thought you might be interested in the Guardian article:
The truth is this is a rigged, cheap food system that has two prices: the one you pay
now and the one we all pay later. It's a story that repeats with carrots, apples and
peas, meat, milk and cheese. Even breakfast cereal. At some point we need to ask
ourselves, why do we support such a destructive food system?
Bear in mind that the printing press led to wars that killed millions and millions of
people and allowed for the creation of despotic states. Centralization that was not always
better than what came before.
People have weird ideas about the Middle Ages. In many respects they were often better
to live in than the Renaissance/Reformation/Enlightenment.
I made the following remarks to a friend the other day.
The internet economy began in 1995. By the year 2000, the internet economy was in
shambles, largely because it was based on a lot of Wall Street fuckery as all bubbles are.
It's now the year 2016 and the economy has been garbage ever since.
The internet is perhaps the most transformative technological achievement ever, but the
economic benefits (such as they were) only lasted for 5 years. Now, if anything, it's used
as a way to further wealth inequality by accelerating the outsourcing of "knowledge work"
and enabling a perverse idea of what it means to have a "sharing economy."
I'm an architect, and I began my career just before computers became widespread. At
weekly job meetings, the general contractor would bring a couple page typed report on the
job status. When computers came in, the report jumped to a hundred pages. More
"information", but far less actual understandable information.
"People have weird ideas about the Middle Ages. In many respects they were often better to
live in than the Renaissance/Reformation/Enlightenment." I no longer remember the exact
quote, but a great error in history was to mistake the setting sun on the middle ages for a
rising sun of the rennaissance.
"Just in time inventory. Not possible 50 years ago."
You are correct to say that the Just-In-Time logistics of 2016 require 2016 tech, not
1966 tech.
Minor sidebar: Henry Ford invented a lot of the concepts that are now cutting-edge
management science, and pushed them as far as he could with the tech that he had.
Major Point: plug-and-play 3D printing was also not possible 50 years ago.
Technological tools empower the people who actually put those tools to use. If the
majority of people have no interest in tools, those uninterested people can't empower
themselves.
" But contrary to the idea that these technologies would increase freedom, they appear,
on a daily basis, to have decreased freedom and privacy "
The InfoTech Revolution still has a chance to empower individuals, to decentralize
decision-making, and to transfer social momentum from transnational exploiters to
community-based cooperatives.
Freedom and privacy have been eroded by the malicious actions of psychopaths. The tech
itself is like a fence. The destruction of liberty is like English kleptocrats forcing
peasants off the commons and fencing the land into sheep pens. Don't blame fence
technology; don't blame the sheep; blame the kleptocrats.
Radical decentralization has a very small number of people who actively work with the
necessary technology. Radical decentralization has a lot of passive supporters who like the
idea but can't understand the tech and don't want to try to learn.
Radical decentralization is not guaranteed to succeed, but if you're sympathetic to the
goal, it might be more productive to write proactive, encouraging essays to motivate the
currently passive supporters so that they will put forth the effort to become active
technologists.
I am remembering the movie "Other Peoples' Lives", about the Stasi in East Germany
before 1989; a terrific and even more terrifying today (than when I first saw it) about
surveillance of every one by corporations and governments. the wall has come down, we've
had the Middle East "Spring" but nothing is changed.
@Mary Margaret Flynn – Yes, I remember that movie very well. At the time, I told
as many people as I could about it, emphasizing the path the U.S. was going down, and going
down particularly rapidly since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Clearly (and I'm sure most of you have considered this as well) the long game being
played is to have today's young people so conditioned to being watched and monitored,
pretty soon the overwhelming majority of the population will no longer even connect mass
surveillance to a loss of freedom (and the loss of everything that goes along with that).
Us old fogies will just be shouting into the wind those of us who haven't been locked up or
otherwise "disappeared".
Let's assume that corporations and government will try to collect as much information
about that. Knowing that, it should be possible for individuals and groups to provide mis-
and disinformation. The object being to render all the data suspect and therefore much less
useful.
Add one -- a BIG ONE–to your list: The utter destruction of the K-12 classroom
learning environment: students spend the vast majority of their time trying to
surreptitiously–or blatantly–use their cellphones in class; and if not actually
using them, they are preoccupied with the thought of using them. It has been going on for
almost a decade now, and we will start to see the results in that we will have a population
where nobody can do anything that requires focus; it will be as if the entire upcoming
population of college students has ADHD.
Well Lee, you have a clue; but fail the really big picture regarding the abject failure
of western education (which is a misnomer).
John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education, lays out the sad
fact of "western education"; which has nothing to do with education; but rather, an
indoctrination for inclusion in society as a passive participant.
Docility is paramount in members of U.S. society so as to maintain the status quo; working
according to plan, near as I can tell
Some people should revise their cinematographic classics. For instance, Charlie
Chaplin's "Modern Times". Things were already pretty bad for the factory workers at the
beginning of the 20th century. You dont need tracking devices for that.
When I was growing up there were two schools of though. One camp wanted to become
lawyers and doctors so that they could become filthy rich. The other wanted to become
scientists because we were sending men to the Moon and they wanted to be part of that kind
of exciting endeavor. There was a smallish cadre that wanted to join the military and save
freedom and democracy from The Red Menace.
Now there are two schools of thought. One camp wants to become lawyers and doctors so
that they can become filthy rich. The other wants to become computer wizards so that they
can become even more filthy rich. No one wants any part of science or engineering because
we aren't doing anything sexy there and you can't get filthy rich doing it.
In the 60's we decided to send men to the Moon and did it in ten years. Now we can't do
it at all, and did not bother to keep detailed records of how we did it then. Having
decided to send men to Mars, we figure it will take thirty years or more to do it, are
behind schedule even for that, and are not convinced that we can even do it.
In 1947 the US Health Service was tasked to eliminate the threat of mosquito-borne
Malaria in the southern part of the nation and did so in two years. Today we are wringing
our hands over the Zika virus and quaking in fear, unable to even start fighting the
threat; terrorized because, apparently, we do not even remember having defeated a similar
threat a mere fifty years ago.
We are living in the "information age," but it appears that history is not part of that
information. It is certain that we are not living in the "accomplishment age."
The US anti-malaria program in the 40s used DDT. It worked well despite its now
well-known toxicity because it was targeting a virgin population. Unfortunately the
agriculture industry subsequently took over mass spraying of DDT which created resistant
mosquitoes and wiped out parts of the life cycle. Similar to the way the agriculture
industry is currently destroying antibiotics for short-term commercial gain.
I am late to the discussion, but I just want to say: Thank you, Ian, for an essay that
succinctly cuts through the lies and nonsense that bombards us every day about the wonders
of our technological dystopia.
Sadly, few of my friends can even notice what is happening to them, let alone do
anything about it.
For me, a happy decade of internet surfing is winding down as the internet gradually
sinks into incoherent noise and utter insanity.
And of course, what you say about surveillance and control is the real point, and
probably always was the real point.
A lot of good points made here, but let me state the essence real simply: Screens are
like a leash, and the leash is just getting shorter and shorter, from TV to cellphones.
Future citizens will feel that their whole universe is a 2″ by 3″ piece of
plastic.
How wonderful for the Masters. The Matrix, without the plumbing.
I don't think my being able to write for the internet makes up for people being de-facto
enslaved at their jobs, or for a panopticon.
But, maybe that's just me. I should be more selfish. It's been good for me, who cares
how many other people it's fucking over or if it will enable a totalitarian police state
which makes 1984 look tame.
Y'know, I'm old enough to remember before cell phones, the internet and even PCs, let
alone mobile and smart phones. Heck I remember before answering machines.
Before answering machines, ah, now there was fucking Nirvana. We had no idea how good we
had it.
A lot of good points made here, but let me state the essence real simply: Screens are like
a leash, and the leash is just getting shorter and shorter, from TV to cellphones.
Future citizens will feel that their whole universe is a 2″ by 3″ piece of
plastic.
How wonderful for the Masters. The Matrix, without the plumbing.
"... Try working construction for minimum wage and not knowing where your next job will come from. Then have your blood pressure tested. ..."
"... I've watched it drive many people out. My own mentor told me when I first started "I'll tell you the first thing my Mentor told me, 'Get out now'". A bit much for a new engineer to take in, but now I know why he said it. Right before he left the company, he started telling me he wasn't sure how much longer he could handle the pressure. ..."
"... I find most of the stress in this industry is self induced by clueless fucks being in charge. ..."
"... I work with people who proudly complain about "working until 2 am" or willingly take on all kinds of client work at ridiculous times because it burnishes their reputation. ..."
"... My understanding would be Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. although I've only really heard from people that have worked at Amazon. They hire new young and eager workers who they can work and fire them when they burn out. However, just as many leave before that. It's all part of an understood system where new workers agree to be overworked while padding their resume and looking for a new job. This lasts for an average of 18 months before they have found a new job or get laid off. ..."
"... The no vacation thing pisses me off. My entire adult life, I've only had one "real" vacation if you define it as a whole week off. ..."
An anonymous reader writes: A survey conducted among the tech workers, including many
employees of Silicon Valley's elite tech companies, has revealed that
over 57% of respondents are suffering from job burnout . The survey was carried out by the
makers of an app that allows employees to review workplaces and have anonymous conversations at
work, behind their employers' backs. Over 11K employees answered one question -- if they suffer
from job burnout, and 57.16% said "Yes."
The company with the highest employee burnout rate was Credit Karma, with a whopping
70.73%, followed by Twitch (68.75%), Nvidia (65.38%), Expedia (65.00%), and Oath (63.03% --
Oath being the former Yahoo company Verizon bought in July 2017). On the other end of the
spectrum, Netflix ranked with the lowest burnout rate of only 38.89%, followed by PayPal
(41.82%), Twitter (43.90%), Facebook (48.97%), and Uber (49.52%).
This is usually the type of thing I tell myself to keep perspective. But the truth is that
tech jobs can be stressful too. I imagine people in blue collar jobs believe we are living
high on the hog with not a care in the world, but it's not really that way. But I also have
two brothers that work jobs requiring much more manual labor. It absolutely takes a toll on
your body.
We've recently had a few people come over to hardware management (I am a hardware
developer). Both my manager and I told them, hardware projects change EVERY DAY. Every day
its, "so and so (big customer) just had issues with this", or "The market is way behind on
these parts and we are short", or "The product you just designed is failing ____ test right
now, what are we doing to fix it".
I've watched it drive many people out. My own mentor told me when I first started "I'll
tell you the first thing my Mentor told me, 'Get out now'". A bit much for a new engineer to
take in, but now I know why he said it. Right before he left the company, he started telling
me he wasn't sure how much longer he could handle the pressure.
Honestly, I don't care as much about the pay, the fancy benefits, or any of the fluff.
What has nearly drove me out is when I feel like every day is just another barrage of
unbounded problems. Like you're the guy on the track, your problem is the chains holding you
there, and management is driving the train and they aren't slowing it down. You better get
those chains undone.
I've been an auto mechanic, welder, machinist, and now EE. My back-up plan / exit strategy
is machining. I enjoy it, it is so much more bounded (in my opinion), and still presents good
challenges to keep me engaged. I already have a colleague in another company on his way.
We've talked at length about it.
I worked for a large company that made networking equipment. My job was to run a sanity
test framework for their operating system. Developers load the images in a queue, the system
pulls them, loads them on real hardware, and executes a body of tests.
The problem was that a bad image would hose the system to where it couldn't reboot, and
then it would not be able to correct itself. Every image after that would fail. My job was to
come in, clean up the mess, and apologize to each developer. It was actually stressful.
I repeatedly told the manager how I could fix it, and he always said we didn't have time.
I waited for him to travel for a week, I shut down the system, and fixed it so that the
system got completely initialized between every run. From that point on, every failure was a
real failure cause by that developer's changes.
My job became a cake walk. I find most of the stress in this industry is self induced by
clueless fucks being in charge.
But the truth is that tech jobs can be stressful too. I imagine people in blue collar
jobs believe we are living high on the hog with not a care in the world, but it's not
really that way.
I was pulling long hours one week to try and finish a software update in time. The
deadline was fast approaching and the outlook was grim. As usual, the cleaning lady came by
to collect the trash that evening and we got to chit-chatting like we usually did (I arrived
late and stayed late back then, so my being there when she did her rounds was perfectly
normal). Part way through the conversation she paused for a moment, then said something to
the effect of, "You know, before I started working here I used to think that you guys all had
it easy with your cushy jobs and nice offices. But then I see people here with the look that
you have in your eyes right now and I realize I was wrong. It's just as tough. Different, but
just as tough, if not tougher."
I think I mustered a tired "Thanks?" in response.
I don't make any claim to having it tougher than anyone else (I have a MASSIVE
appreciation for manual workers, among many other fields, since I couldn't do that work), but
the only people I find suggesting that tech work is easy are those who either aren't in the
field and have no awareness of what it entails, or those who are a burden on everyone else
around them in the field.
Yes, but the stress that tech people experience is completely fake. It REALLY doesn't
matter if your work is done on time.
It does if you want to remain employed with your current company. If that doesn't matter
to you then you probably aren't stressed to begin with. If anyone who worked for me expressed
that attitude they would be "succeeding elsewhere" in short order.
No one is going to die if your software or network doesn't work.
I'd like to introduce you to some folks who work in medical IT who will disagree with you
rather strongly. Same thing with software that controls/drives cars or airplanes or manned
rockets or traffic signals or ocean navigation or food safety or electrical grids or nuclear
reactor controls or.... The list is very long for things that actually do matter. Yeah,
nobody probably cares if your word processor crashes but more than a few of us do things that
have serious consequences.
Amazingly humans survived for thousands of years without IT or computers.
Ok we're done here. Claiming people shouldn't have stress because computers didn't exist
200 years ago is irrelevant and stupid.
Tech work culture is seriously broken when 80 hour weeks and never going on vacation for
any reason is encouraged and celebrated. Burnout under such conditions is inevitable .
I work with people who proudly complain about "working until 2 am" or willingly take on
all kinds of client work at ridiculous times because it burnishes their reputation.
Some after hours work is unavoidable in IT, but I just refuse to work those kinds of hours
regularly without added compensation of some kind (added vacation days without strings and/or
more money).
As a more skilled/experienced/older worker, I think I can get away with it but I'm not
gonna lie, the people who do it seem to have more street cred in the organization because
they are willing to bend over.
I think it's highly organization dependent and sometimes individually dependent (ie, can
you get done what needs doing in normal work hours). And I think there are definitely orgs
where if you're not doing that, you might as well resign now because you will get shuffled to
the shit work.
I worked 55-60 hours a week for most of a year, mainly due to two senior people leaving
with a month's difference and a third knocked his head pretty bad leaving me and a few
juniors to sort it out. That was as an IT consultant job though so I had a billing bonus that
gave me pretty good kickback. If I recall correctly it kicked in at about 2/3rd = 67%
billable time and the company average was 75-80% somewhere, so your average consultant would
get bonus for like 10% while I could hit 50%+. Normally they wouldn't'
I hear this all the time but WTH actually does this? Anyone here at slashdot? Even when
I was younger I did an all nighter just once or twice. I've been working 8 hour days the
last 15 years.
My understanding would be Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. although I've only really
heard from people that have worked at Amazon. They hire new young and eager workers who they
can work and fire them when they burn out. However, just as many leave before that. It's all
part of an understood system where new workers agree to be overworked while padding their
resume and looking for a new job. This lasts for an average of 18 months before they have
found a new job or get laid off. They hopefully hop to
The no vacation thing pisses me off. My entire adult life, I've only had one "real"
vacation if you define it as a whole week off.
One reason there's such a lack of vacation time here in Seattle is that in Washington
state, the law only requires less than 2/3 be paid out. In CA, we have to pay out 100%.
That's why in CA we require employees to take PTO to get it off of the books, but in WA we
basically don't allow vacation time. No company I've ever worked for let programmers take
even a fifth (as a guess)
I worked for a companies where IT people used to look for places to go on vacation that
had no phones or pager service. For one co-worker's rafting trip on the Colorado River
through the Grand Canyon started a trend among the IT staff: where can I go where the
phone/pager coverage is really poor or non-existent? Far, far North Canadian fishing trips
started getting considered. Can't have people actually having an outside-of-work life so the
companies bought satellite phones. No more vacations for you withou
If you work under such conditions by choice then it is on your shoulders alone.
No, you're wrong. Those working conditions are spreading everywhere. Companies have
figured out that instead of hiring more people, they can force others to work more for the
same pay.
It is very nice to be independently wealthy and not have to worry about getting a
paycheck, but for the rest of us we have to do it for a paycheck or face homelessness and
possibly starvation.
If all available work is under such conditions, is that really a choice?
It is very nice to be independently wealthy and not have to worry about getting a
paycheck, but for the rest of us we have to do it for a paycheck or face homelessness and
possibly starvation.
You don't have to be independently wealthy to make a living doing something that you don't
enjoy. If you hate IT work then go find something else to do. It's a big world with lots of
opportunity.
If all available work is under such conditions, is that really a choice?
Are you seriously claiming that someone who is bright enough to find work in the tech
sector will find it impossible to do something else if they put their mind to it? Possibly
even something they actually enjoy doing with reasonable hours and adequate pay. Point is
very few people are forced to work in IT. Arg
Old timer, this is no longer the case. It may have been true when you were young, but
these days it is IT, gigs, or unemployment. Too many people in a globally connected world
competing for the same few jobs.
That's hilarious. Do you have any idea how many jobs there are available in academia? Not
many. The issue is that if you do what you love, what's the incentive to stop? There's a
reason that the average age of professors always hovers in the 50s and 60s. It's not uncommon
to find semi-retired professors still kicking around well into their 70s teaching one or two
classes they love.
Do I really have to explain that some people don't really give a shit about what they are
doing? Sure everyone works to get paid but some people actually try to enjoy what they are
doing along the way so that the job is more than just a means to get money.
I've taken 4 weeks of vacation in 30 years. One week when my dad died. One week for a
camping trip, and the remaining two weeks were for things like my children being born.
Then you've been suckered, or have different priorities. One year, I took 6 weeks off to
travel around the country. Another year, I took 4 weeks off and went to Australia. Another
year, I took 6
Long on call hours. Declining inflation adjusted wages. Having to spend hours and hours of
your own time training because companies don't train anymore. Constant threats of outsourcing
or being replaced by an H1-B applicant (despite the fact that that is explicitly
illegal).
Does this result argue for wider adoption of Netflix's H.R. model, as expressed in the
manifesto
[slideshare.net] that went viral a few years back? Namely:
1. Hire "A" players, because the competence of one's coworkers is a large contributor to
employee satisfaction.
2. Don't use golden handcuffs as a means of mitigating hiring churn; you want employees to
stay at the company because they want to be there. Employees choose how much stock they want
vs. cash.
3. Don't use performance based bonuses; high performance is the base level expectation, not
something to be singled out and rewarded.
4. "We're a team, not a family." You don't "cut" people from a family; you do "cut" people
from a pro sports team.
5. "Hard work - Not Relevant". They care about productivity, not how hard you worked to be
productive.
6. Low tolerance for "brilliant jerks".
7. Pay "top of market" wages. "One outstanding employee gets more done and costs less than
two 'adequate' employees." "Employees should feel they are being paid well relative to other
options in the market."
A single data point is statistically meaningless "woe is us" wanking UNLESS other
industries are surveyed.
If the "burnout" rate for tech workers is 57%, but for medical workers is 75%, factory
line workers is 62%, and teachers is 60%, then the rate for tech workers is really not
bad.
If OTOH other industries scale at 20-30%, then the tech sector really is dire.
In short: I suspect that everyone feels like they are underappreciated, underpaid, and is
"fed up with all the bullshit at work"...like everyone else.
The office (
Score: 4 , Interesting) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @10:50AM
( #56847616 )
I've done a lot of Peopleware like consulting, mostly for software development teams. The
IT office space is in general the enemy of these teams. They are noisy and destroy your
concentration. You can only break someones concentration for a finite number per day,
certainly with introverts, after that the dev is just excausted. As a rule of thumb, the
correlation is more people wearing headphones -> more burnout. It's fucked up that people
need to wear headphones to attempt to do their work, and a clear sign the environment is
poison to their jobs. Of course they put all these people in the same space, to save money.
Hardly ever do they do the math, and contemplate how much it costs them in burnout and
turnover.
Does this result argue for wider adoption of Netflix's H.R. model, as expressed in the
manifesto
[slideshare.net] that went viral a few years back? Namely:
1. Hire "A" players, because the competence of one's coworkers is a large contributor to
employee satisfaction.
2. Don't use golden handcuffs as a means of mitigating hiring churn; you want employees to
stay at the company because they want to be there. Employees choose how much stock they want
vs. cash.
3. Don't use performance based bonuses; high performance is the base level expectation, not
something to be singled out and rewarded.
4. "We're a team, not a family." You don't "cut" people from a family; you do "cut" people
from a pro sports team.
5. "Hard work - Not Relevant". They care about productivity, not how hard you worked to be
productive.
6. Low tolerance for "brilliant jerks".
7. Pay "top of market" wages. "One outstanding employee gets more done and costs less than
two 'adequate' employees." "Employees should feel they are being paid well relative to other
options in the market."
Yep, so many folks LOOOVVVVEEE 50, 60, 70 hour weeks, and having to respond to the boss
24x7x365.25. Who needs a life?
UNIONS are why we have benefits, weekends, holidays and vacations. No company did that out
of the alleged kindness of their hearts.
But none of you here need them, they're *so* "ancient", never mind they could get you a 40
hour week and no being bothered off hours, no, enjoy your (non-) life.
What's wrong with not being promoted -- just do your job well, take your pay and vacation
time. Work to live, don't live to work. A snazzy job title isn't the pinnacle of human
achievement.
Because US's annual raises rarely meet the US's annual inflation rates. So you are forced
to move up the salary chain or effectively get a pay cut ever year.
What's wrong with not being promoted -- just do your job well, take your pay and
vacation time. Work to live, don't live to work. A snazzy job title isn't the pinnacle of
human achievement.
While I agree with the sentiment that most people shouldn't feel pressured into living to
work, the pinnacle of human achievement in any discipline is nearly always achieved through
an insane devotion to the task. The people responsible for this level of excellence generally
live to work.
There is nothing wrong with working to live, but there often is nothing wrong with living
to work as long as it is a decision made freely.
Or at least raise the wage floor where overtime == time and a half. Obama tried this,
Trump unfortunately rolled it back. Also, sometimes you need to work overtime two weeks in a
row, crunch time to finish a project. I'd change that requirement to get the time back to
something like a 2-3 month period.
I'd support having all such things (including scheduled days off, vacation, overtime/comp
time, etc.) kept indefinitely, with maximum caps for each kind. If an employee leaves for any
reason, including being fired, they get paid out whatever they haven't used.
I'm quite happy to help my team meet their goals and go the extra mile to deliver a
quality product to our customer..... but I certainly expect that once that's done, I'll get
to go spend time with my family.
40 hour work weeks, enforced. 30 days paid vacation per year, plus holidays and
weekends.
Par for the course in the UK.
If you work overtime one week, you get those hours back the next week.
Not par for the course, but it's pretty common the you will get it back sometime. A busy
period coming up to a deadline could cover a few weeks.
Everyone gets two days off in a row every week.
.. usually happens
If you give up those days for some special reason, you get comp vacation time to be used
within the next month.
You would usually get this, but may have to wait until the peak is over before taking the
time back. Alternatively you could be paid - time and a half is quite common
Everyone takes all their vacation, every year.
In the UK it's exceptional for anyone not to take all their time. A company I worked for
switched the "holiday year" from a fixed January-December to a ye
$250k/yr if you have no time to enjoy it is worthless unless you plan to work for a few
years, live like a miser, and invest enough of it in rental property so you never have to
work again.
I work with several devs making nearly that much, and they most certainly are burned out.
When you work constant death marches with Seattle Hundreds (16 hours a day Mon-Thu and 12
hours a day Fri-Sun) that almost always happens. I work almost that much, and I moved over a
year ago and still haven't even unpacked yet. High pay helps, but you still have a breaking
point. There just aren't enough programmers to meet demand.
How does the company even end up with 100 hours of work per week for everyone? Is that all
essential work, or just busywork? If burnout rate is super high, wouldn't you end up with
even more work and fewer people to do it?
...end up with even more work and fewer people to do it?
The part I find fascinating about that is that the junior/recent college grads stick with
jobs despite the long hours for the experience and the most experienced people stick with
jobs because they know it's the same most everywhere else. I guess it's the devil you know.
The guys in the middle with five to fifteen years experience are the ones that keep jumping
ship to try to find somewhere better.
My company has about eighty people with less than three years experience and around twenty
with more than tw
I work with several devs making nearly that much, and they most certainly are burned
out. When you work constant death marches with Seattle Hundreds (16 hours a day Mon-Thu and
12 hours a day Fri-Sun) that almost always happens. I work almost that much, and I moved
over a year ago and still haven't even unpacked yet. High pay helps, but you still have a
breaking point. There just aren't enough programmers to meet demand.
I've never worked anywhere with that kind of schedule....or known anyone who has. Then
again, I have never lived in shit holes like Seattle or California.
I simply wouldn't work like that. If it were that, or go on welfare, I'd say fuck it and
go on welfare, or just rob houses for a living - leaving that kind of schedule to the
suckers.
If my employer required me to work more than 50 hours per week on anything other than a
rare occasion, I'd find a new employer. ASAP.
Too many tech jobs are just cleaning up after Indian disaster after Indian disaster. And
not in any sort of permanent way, just putting out the same fires over and over.
There are two kinds of IT people. Those who create. And those who fix creations. If you're
tired of doing one, then figure out how to get paid doing the other, and feel good knowing
you'll be working to fix
Recent studies have shown that 90% of Americans use digital devices for two or more hours each day and the average American spends
more time a day on high-tech devices than they do sleeping:
8 hours and 21 minutes to
be exact. If you've ever considered attempting a "digital detox", there are some health benefits to making that change and a
few tips to make things a little easier on yourself.
Many Americans are on their phones rather than playing with their children or spending quality family time together. Some people
give up technology, or certain aspects of it, such as social media for varying reasons, and there are some shockingly terrific health
benefits that come along with that type of a detox from technology. In fact, more and
more health experts and medical
professionals are suggesting a periodic digital detox; an extended period without those technology gadgets.
Studies continue to show that a digital detox, has
proven to be beneficial for relationships, productivity, physical health, and mental health. If you find yourself overly stressed
or unproductive or generally disengaged from those closest to you, it might be time to unplug.
DIGITAL ADDICTION RESOLUTION
It may go unnoticed but there are many who are actually addicted to their smartphones or tablet. It could be social media or YouTube
videos, but these are the people who never step away. They are the ones with their face in their phone while out to dinner with their
family. They can't have a quiet dinner without their phone on the table. We've seen them at the grocery store aimlessly pushing around
a cart while ignoring their children and scrolling on their phone. A whopping
83%
of American teenagers claim to play video games while other people are in the same room and
92%
of teens report to going online daily . 24% of those users access the internet via laptops, tablets, and mobile devices.
Addiction therapists who treat gadget-obsessed people say their patients aren't that different from other kinds of addicts. Whereas
alcohol, tobacco, and drugs involve a substance that a user's body gets addicted to, in behavioral addiction, it's the mind's craving
to turn to the smartphone or the Internet. Taking a break teaches us that we can live without constant stimulation, and lessens our
dependence on electronics. Trust us: that Facebook message with a funny meme attached or juicy tidbit of gossip can wait.
IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS AND BE MORE PERSONABLE
Another benefit to keeping all your electronics off is that it will allow you to establish good mannerisms and people skills and
build your relationships to a strong level of connection. If you have ever sat across someone at the dinner table who made more phone
contact than eye contact, you know it feels to take a backseat to a screen. Cell phones and other gadgets force people to look down
and away from their surroundings, giving them a closed off and inaccessible (and often rude) demeanor. A digital detox has the potential
of forcing you out of that unhealthy comfort zone. It could be a start toward rebuilding a struggling relationship too. In a
Forbes study ,
3 out of 5 people claimed that they spend more time on their digital devices than they do with their partners. This can pose
a real threat to building and maintaining real-life relationships. The next time you find yourself going out on a dinner date, try
leaving your cell phone and other devices at home and actually have a conversation. Your significant other will thank you.
BETTER SLEEP AND HEALTHIER EATING HABITS
The sleep interference caused by these high-tech gadgets is another mental health concern. The
stimulation caused by artificial light can make
you feel more awake than you really are, which can potentially interfere with your sleep quality. It is recommended that you give
yourself at least two hours of technology-free time before bedtime. The "blue light" has been shown to interfere with
sleeping patterns by inhibiting melatonin
(the hormone which controls our sleep/wake cycle known as circadian rhythm) production. Try shutting off your phone after dinner
and leaving it in a room other than your bedroom. Another great tip is to buy one of those old-school alarm clocks so the smartphone
isn't ever in your bedroom. This will help your body readjust to a normal and healthy sleep schedule.
Your eating habits can also suffer if you spend too much time checking your newsfeed.
The Rochester Institute of Technology released a study that
revealed students are more likely to eat while staring into digital media than they are to eat at a dinner table. This means that
eating has now become a multi-tasking activity, rather than a social and loving experience in which healthy foods meant to sustain
the body are consumed. This can prevent students from eating consciously, which promotes unhealthy eating habits such as overeating
and easy choices, such as a bag of chips as opposed to washing and peeling some carrots. Whether you're an overworked college student
checking your Facebook, or a single bachelor watching reruns of The Office , a digital detox is a great way to promote healthy and
conscious eating.
IMPROVE OVERALL MENTAL HEALTH
Social media addicts experience a wide array of emotions when looking at the photos of Instagram models and the exercise regimes
of others who live in exotic locations. These emotions can be mentally draining and psychologically unhealthy and lead to depression.
Smartphone use has been linked to loneliness, shyness, and less engagement at work. In other words,
one may have many "social media friends" while being lonely and unsatisfied because those friends are only accessible through
their screen. Start by limiting your time on social media. Log out of all social media accounts. That way, you've actually got to
log back in if you want to see what that Parisian Instagram vegan model is up to.
If you feel like a detox is in order but don't know how to go about it, start off small. Try shutting off your phone after dinner
and don't turn it back on until after breakfast. Keep your phone in another room besides your bedroom overnight. If you use your
phone as an alarm clock, buy a cheap alarm clock to use instead to lessen your dependence on your phone. Boredom is often the biggest
factor in the beginning stages of a detox, but try playing an undistracted board game with your children, leaving your phone at home
during a nice dinner out, or playing with a pet. All of these things are not only good for you but good for your family and beloved
furry critter as well!
BeauHD on Saturday September 01,
2018 @09:00AM from the it's-all-in-your-head dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from the
BBC: [A new study] identified two areas of the brain that determine whether we are more
likely to get on with a task or continually put it off. Researchers used a survey and scans of
264 people's brains to measure how proactive they were. Experts say the study, in Psychological
Science , underlines procrastination is more about managing emotions than
time . It found that the amygdala -- an almond-shaped structure in the temporal (side) lobe
which processes our emotions and controls our motivation -- was larger in
procrastinators.
In these individuals, there were also poorer connections between the amygdala and a part
of the brain called the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex
(DACC). The DACC uses information from the amygdala and decides what action the body will
take.
It helps keep the person on track by blocking out competing emotions and
distractions.
The researchers suggest that procrastinators are less able to filter out interfering
emotions and distractions because the connections between the amygdala and the DACC in their
brains are not as good as in proactive individuals.
Self-improvement and success often occur together. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're
the same thing.
Our culture today is obsessively focused on unrealisticallv positive expectations: Be
happier. Be healthier. Be the best, better than the rest. Be smarter, faster, richer, sexier,
more popular, more productive, more envied, and more admired. Be perfect and amazing and crap
out twelve-karat-gold nuggets before breakfast each morning while kissing your selfie-ready
spouse and two and a half kids goodbye. Then fly your helicopter to your wonderfully fulfilling
job, where you spend your days doing
incredibly meaningful work that's likely to save the planet one day.
But when you stop and really think about it, conventional life advice -- all the positive
and happy self-help stuff we hear all the time -- is actually fixating on what you lack. It
lasers in on what you perceive your personal shortcomings and failures to already be, and then
emphasizes them for you.
You learn about the best ways to make money because you feel you don't have enough money
already. You stand in front of the mirror and repeat affirmations saying that you're beautiful
because you feel as though you're not beautiful already. You follow dating and relationship
advice because you feel that you're unlovable already. You try goofy visualization exercises
about being more successful because you feel as though you aren't successful enough
already.
Ironically, this fixation on the positive -- on what's better, what's superior -- only
serves to remind us over and over again of what we are not, of what we lack, of what we should
have been but failed to be. After all, no truly happy person feels the need to stand in front
of a mirror and recite that she's happy. She just is.
There's a saying in Texas: "The smallest dog barks the loudest." A confident man doesn't
feel a need to prove that he's confident. A rich woman doesn't feel a need to convince anybody
that she's rich. Either you are or you are not. And if you're dreaming of something all the
time, then you're reinforcing the same unconscious reality over and over: that you are not
that.
Everyone and their TV commercial wants you to believe that the key to a good life is a nicer
job, or a more rugged car, or a prettier girlfriend, or a hot tub with an inflatable pool for
the kids. The world is constantly telling you that the path to a better life is more, more,
more -- buy more, own more, make more, flick more, be more. You are constantly bombarded with
messages to give a fuck about event hi ng, all the time. Give a fuck about a new TV. Give a
fuck about having a better vacation than your coworkers. Give a fuck about buying that new lawn
ornament. Give a fuck about having the right kind of selfie stick.
A Much Needed Reminder to Choose Your Battles Wisely
As someone who has given far too many f***s about far too many things their entire life,
this book was exactly the wake up call I needed. Even as a child in elementary school, I
would have a miniature meltdown when I got a bad grade or if a friend was mean to me that
day. As an adult, I got better at hiding these emotional upheavals and intense reactions to
the world around me, but they never really went away with my maturity like I had hoped. I
took to heart every disheartening news article I read and every crappy thing that happened to
me at work or in school. I'd let it consume me, because I was never told to live life any
other way or that controlling my reactions was even remotely possible; I thought it was just
a permanent part of my personality. I always knew that it was more of a vice than a virtue,
but I felt like I couldn't fully control it.
Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*** employs a witty use of profanity laced
with satirical comedy that's bursting with philosophical wisdom. Much of Manson's inspiration
originates from nihilists, Buddhists, Albert Camus, and Charles Bukowski, but he brings those
philosophies into a more modern and palatable perspective. He reminds us that life is too
short to react so passionately about every little thing. We have a limited emotional
capacity, and we often squander it on reactions to mean-spirited people or unfortunate
events, completely forgetting that, although we can't control the world around us, we can
control ourselves. This book has empowered me to exercise control over my reactions.
Shortly after reading this book, my husband commented at how "zen" I've become. I'm no
longer angrily venting to him about all of the various ways the world upsets me. I still
allow myself to feel and talk about things that bother me (I'm not aiming to achieve nirvana
as a Buddhist monk), but petty things no longer have a hold on me. I let the negativity wash
over me now without letting it absorb into my soul, and my life has been much more enjoyable
as a result.
I was so inspired by this book and its philosophy, that I wanted a permanent reminder for
myself to further ensure that I use my f***s wisely from now onward. For my birthday, I got
this simple, but meaningful tattoo on my right wrist. The ∞ symbol reminds me of the
infinite nature of time and outer space, and the 0 on the bottom represents humanity's
relevance to time and space as a whole. It can also be translated as don't make something
(∞) out of nothing (0) or a reminder that there are infinite opportunities to give a
f***, but that I will remain steadfast in giving 0 f***s about things that don't really
matter.
If you're the type of person who's struggled to keep their temper in line or if you're
like me and you find yourself on an emotional roller-coaster because you take every event in
the world and within your own life to heart, I strongly encourage you to read this book. If
profanity is so much of a problem for you, that you can't tolerate reading the first half of
this book (the last half is much less profane) you're probably too narrow-minded to have
taken away any of the many philosophical benefits this book offers.
Most workers reckon that their bosses are excessively bureaucratic, apportion blame wrongly and are inconsistent in decision
making, a report has found.
Sirota Survey Intelligence questioned 3.5 million staff over three years at firms including global giants Shell, Tesco, Microsoft
and Dell.
The belief that managers hamper staff is deeply ingrained, the report showed.
Instead, workers want to know what is expected of them, have competent bosses and better cooperation across the firm.
'Out of the way'
Sirota argues that the biggest challenge for many companies is creating an enthusiastic workforce as this is a key element
of a successful organisation.
Dr David Sirota, Chairman of the research firm, believes that too often managers get in the way and hinder their staff's natural
enthusiasm.
"People come to work, to work," Mr Sirota said.
"Unfortunately, they often find conditions that block high performance, such as excessive bureaucracy burying them in paperwork,
and slowing decision making to a crawl.
"Management has to help employees perform, which in many cases means getting out of the way."
A Much Needed Reminder to Choose Your Battles Wisely
As someone who has given far too many f***s about far too many things their entire life,
this book was exactly the wake up call I needed. Even as a child in elementary school, I
would have a miniature meltdown when I got a bad grade or if a friend was mean to me that
day. As an adult, I got better at hiding these emotional upheavals and intense reactions to
the world around me, but they never really went away with my maturity like I had hoped. I
took to heart every disheartening news article I read and every crappy thing that happened to
me at work or in school. I'd let it consume me, because I was never told to live life any
other way or that controlling my reactions was even remotely possible; I thought it was just
a permanent part of my personality. I always knew that it was more of a vice than a virtue,
but I felt like I couldn't fully control it.
Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*** employs a witty use of profanity laced
with satirical comedy that's bursting with philosophical wisdom. Much of Manson's inspiration
originates from nihilists, Buddhists, Albert Camus, and Charles Bukowski, but he brings those
philosophies into a more modern and palatable perspective. He reminds us that life is too
short to react so passionately about every little thing. We have a limited emotional
capacity, and we often squander it on reactions to mean-spirited people or unfortunate
events, completely forgetting that, although we can't control the world around us, we can
control ourselves. This book has empowered me to exercise control over my reactions.
Shortly after reading this book, my husband commented at how "zen" I've become. I'm no
longer angrily venting to him about all of the various ways the world upsets me. I still
allow myself to feel and talk about things that bother me (I'm not aiming to achieve nirvana
as a Buddhist monk), but petty things no longer have a hold on me. I let the negativity wash
over me now without letting it absorb into my soul, and my life has been much more enjoyable
as a result.
I was so inspired by this book and its philosophy, that I wanted a permanent reminder for
myself to further ensure that I use my f***s wisely from now onward. For my birthday, I got
this simple, but meaningful tattoo on my right wrist. The ∞ symbol reminds me of the
infinite nature of time and outer space, and the 0 on the bottom represents humanity's
relevance to time and space as a whole. It can also be translated as don't make something
(∞) out of nothing (0) or a reminder that there are infinite opportunities to give a
f***, but that I will remain steadfast in giving 0 f***s about things that don't really
matter.
If you're the type of person who's struggled to keep their temper in line or if you're
like me and you find yourself on an emotional roller-coaster because you take every event in
the world and within your own life to heart, I strongly encourage you to read this book. If
profanity is so much of a problem for you, that you can't tolerate reading the first half of
this book (the last half is much less profane) you're probably too narrow-minded to have
taken away any of the many philosophical benefits this book offers.
There are a dozen of topics Mark goes through in this book. Some of the main themes are
these:
(1) Choosing what to care about; focusing on the things/problems that are actually
meaningful/important (= "giving a f*** about the right things")
(2) Learning to be fine with some negative things; always aiming for positivity isn't
practical, and is stressful in itself
(3) Taking responsibility of your own life; it's good for your self-esteem not to keep
blaming the circumstances for your problems
(4) Understanding the importance of honesty and boundaries, especially in relationships
(5) Identity; it might a good idea not to commit strongly to any special identity such as "an
undiscovered genius", because then any challenges will make you fear the potential loss of
that identity you've clinged to
(6) Motivation; how to improve it by accepting failure and taking action
(7) Death; how learning to be more comfortable with one's own mortality can make it easier to
live
The first 20% of this book were a little bit boring to read, but after that, the
experience was very absorbing. Just like Manson's previous book (Models), I will give this
one five stars.
(BTW this book wasn't as humorous as I expected. It was much more a serious than a funny
book to read. The final chapters, discussing the acceptance of death, made me actually a
little bit tense and distressed.)
"... By Scott Ferguson, an assistant professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published at Arcade ..."
"... requirement ..."
"... You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone ..."
Posted on
January 5, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. The reason I prefer a jobs guarantee
(with an income guarantee at a lower income level)
is that the time an income guarantee was implemented
on an open-ended, long term basis, it produced an
unskilled underclass (see
our post on the Speenhamland system
for more
detail).
Moreover, the idea that people are
brimming with all sorts of creative things they'd do
if they had an income to allow themselves to do it
is bunk. For instance, MacArthur Foundation grant
recipients, arguably some of the very most creative
people in society, almost without exception do not
do anything productive while they have their grant
funding. And let us not kid ourselves: most people
are not creative and need structure and pressure to
get anything done.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work provides
a community. If you are extraverted and need to be
around people during the day, it's hard to create
enough opportunities for interaction on your own.
By Scott Ferguson, an assistant
professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department
of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University
of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy
focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of
neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of
digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic
writing across media platforms. Originally published
at
Arcade
In the wake of Donald Trump's alarming election
to the White House, historian James Livingston
published an essay in Aeon Magazine with the
somewhat provocative title, "
Fuck
Work
." The piece encapsulates the argument
spelled out in Livingston's latest book,
No
More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea
(The
University of North Carolina Press, 2016).
In both his book and the Aeon essay, Livingston
sets out to address several overlapping crises: an
alienating and now exhausted "work ethic" that
crystallized during the Protestant Reformation;
forty years of rampant underemployment, declining
wages, and widening inequality; a corresponding
surge in financial speculation and drop in
productive investment and aggregate demand; and a
post-2008 climate of cultural resentment and
political polarization, which has fueled populist
uprisings from Left to Right.
What the present catastrophe shows,
according to Livingston's diagnosis, is the ultimate
failure of the marketplace to provision and
distribute social labor. What's worse, the future of
work looks dismal. Citing the works of Silicon
Valley cyber-utopians and orthodox economists at
Oxford and M.I.T., Livingston insists that
algorithms and robotization will reduce the
workforce by half within twenty years and that this
is unstoppable, like some perverse natural process.
"The measurable trends of the past half-century, and
the plausible projections for the next half-century,
are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as
dismal science or ideological hokum," he concludes.
"They look like the data on climate change-you can
deny them if you like, but you'll sound like a moron
when you do."
Livingston's response to this
"empirical," "measurable," and apparently undeniable
doomsday scenario is to embrace the collapse of
working life without regret. "Fuck work" is
Livingston's slogan for moving beyond the demise of
work, transforming a negative condition into a
positive sublation of collective life.
In concrete terms, this means implementing
progressive taxation to capture corporate earnings,
and then redistributing this money through a "
Universal
Basic Income
," what in his book is described as
a "minimum annual income for every citizen." Such a
massive redistribution of funds would sever the
historical relationship between work and wages, in
Livingston's view, freeing un- and underemployed
persons to pursue various personal and communal
ends. Such a transformation is imminently
affordable, since there are plenty of corporate
funds to seize and redirect to those in need. The
deeper problem, as Livingston sees it, is a moral
one. We must rebuff the punishing asceticism of the
Protestant work ethic and, instead, reorganize the
soul on more free and capacious bases.
Lest we get the wrong idea, Livingston maintains
that social labor will not simply disappear in a
world organized by a tax-funded Universal Basic
Income. Rather, he envisions an increasingly
automated future, where leisure is our primary
preoccupation, social labor becomes entirely
voluntary, and ongoing consumption props up
aggregate demand. Eschewing utopian plans or
prescriptions, he wonders,
What would society and civilisation be like
if we didn't have to 'earn' a living-if leisure
was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang
out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or
volunteer to teach children in less-developed
places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and
watch reality TV all day?
Enraged over the explosion of underpaid and
precarious service work? Disaffected by soulless
administration and info management positions?
Indignant about the history of unfree labor that
underwrites the history of the so-called "free
market"? Want more free time? Not enough work to go
around? Well, then, fuck work, declares Livingston.
Say goodbye to the old liberal-democratic goal of
full employment and bid good riddance to misery,
servitude, and precarity.
"Fuck work" has struck a chord with a
diverse crowd of readers. Since its release, the
essay has garnered more than 350,000 clicks on the
Aeon website. The Spanish publication
Contexto
y Acción
has released a translation of the
piece. And weeks later, Livingston's rallying cry
continues to resonate through social media networks.
"Fuck Work" has been enthusiastically retweeted by
everyone from Marxists and small "l" liberals to
anarchists and tech gurus.
The trouble is that Livingston's "Fuck Work"
falls prey to an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically
Liberal
social
ontology, which reifies the neoliberal order it aims
to transform. Disavowing modern humanity's reliance
on broadscale political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology predicates
social life on immediate and seemingly "free"
associations, while its critical preoccupation with
tyranny and coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so many
Universal Basic Income supporters on the
contemporary Left, Livingston doubles down on this
contracted relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance, Livingston's
triumphant negation of work only compounds
neoliberalism's two-faced retreat from collective
governance and concomitant depoliticization of
social production and distribution.
In a
previous
contribution
to Arcade, I critiqued the Liberal
conception of money upon which Marxists such as
Livingston unquestionably rely. According to this
conception, money is a private, finite and alienable
quantum of value, which must be wrested from private
coffers before it can be made to serve the public
purpose. By contrast, Modern Monetary Theory
contends that money is a boundless and fundamentally
inalienable public utility. That utility is grounded
in political governance. And government can always
afford to support meaningful social production,
regardless of its ability to capture taxes from the
rich. The result: employment is always and
everywhere a political decision, not merely a
function of private enterprise, boom and bust
cycles, and automation. There is therefore nothing
inevitable about underemployment and the misery it
induces. In no sense are we destined for a "jobless
future."
Thus upon encountering Aeon Magazine's
tagline for Livingston's piece-"What if jobs are not
the solution, but the problem?"-I immediately began
wondering otherwise.
What if we rebuffed the white
patriarchal jargon of full employment, which keeps
millions of poor, women, and minorities
underemployed and imprisoned? What if, in lieu of
this liberal-democratic ruse, we made an
all-inclusive and well-funded
federal
Job Guarantee
the basis for a renewed leftist
imaginary?
What if we stopped believing that
capitalists and automation are responsible for
determining how and when we labor together? What if
we quit imagining that so-called "leisure"
spontaneously organizes itself like the
laissez-faire markets we elsewhere decry?
What if we created a public works
system, which set a just and truly livable wage
floor for the entire economy? What if we made it
impossible for reprehensible employers like Walmart
to exploit the underprivileged, while multiplying
everyone's bargaining powers? What if we used such a
system to decrease the average work day, to demand
that everyone has healthcare, and to increase the
quality of social participation across public and
private sectors? What if economic life was no longer
grounded solely in the profit motive?
What if we cared for all of our
children, sick, and growing elderly population? What
if we halved teacher-student ratios across all grade
levels? What if we built affordable homes for
everyone? What if there was a community garden on
every block? What if we made our cities energy
efficient? What if we expanded public libraries?
What if we socialized and remunerated historically
unpaid care work? What if public art centers became
standard features of neighborhoods? What if we paid
young people to document the lives of retirees?
What if we guaranteed that
Black
lives really matter
? What if, in addition to
dismantling the prison industrial complex, we
created a rich and welcoming world where everyone,
citizen or not, has the right to participation and
care?
What if private industry's rejection of
workers freed the public to organize social labor on
capacious, diverse, and openly contested premises?
What if public works affirmed
inclusion, collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
What if we predicated social critique
on terms that are not defined by the neoliberal
ideology that we wish to circumvent?
What if we radically affirmed our
dependence on the public institutions that support
us? What if we forced government to take
responsibility for the system it already conditions?
What if we admitted that there are no
limits to how we can care for one another and that,
as a political community, we can always afford it?
Livingston's argument cannot abide such
questions. Hence the Left's reply to "fuck work"
should be clear: fuck that.
Again the seemingly endless conflation of work,
good, with being a wage slave, not so good.
Progressives would do well to focus on justice and
that does not include making victims work for
restitution. One would think Progressives would wish
to f@uck wage slavery, not perpetuate it.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work
provides a community. If you are extraverted and
need to be around people during the day, it's hard
to create enough opportunities for interaction on
your own.
Yves Smith
I solve that problem with volunteer labor at a
local laundry. I do it ONLY when my favorite worker
is there because I like her, she has a family to
support, she is overworked, she is in constant pain
from fibromyalgia, has carpal tunnel syndrome and
because of the interesting people I get to see
there.
How can I afford to do meaningful work for free?
Because I'm retired and have a guaranteed income
from Social Security and a small pension.
And let's be honest. A guaranteed job as opposed
to a guaranteed income is meant to boost wages by
withholding labor from the private sector. But who
needs wages with an adequate guaranteed income?
I'll also piggyback onto this, even though I
am not keen on basic income until I see a little
more work put into it.
Many people aren't actually contributing
anything in any given work environment in our
current system. To expect differently if we have
a guaranteed jobs program seems naive.
In the administrative structures I've worked
under (both private and non profit, often
interacting with government), many workers have
obstructionist compliance responsibilities.
Decisions are put off through nonsense data
gathering and reporting, signatures in
triplicate, etc. It's why I've become a huge
proponent of the
Garbage Can theory
of administration: most
of the work being done is actually to connect or
disconnect problems from decision making. When
it comes down to it, there are only a few actual
decision makers within an organization, with
everyone else there to CYA. That goes for any
bureaucracy, private or public.
David Graeber has detailed the "bullshit
jobs" phenomenon pretty well, and dismantles
bureaucracy in his book, and says all this
better than I. But the federal job guarantee
seems like a path to a bureaucratic hell. Of
course, an income guarantee for the disabled,
mental, physical, otherwise, is absolutely
critical.
There is no magic bullet, whether JG or
UBI. But I think the author and Yves are
absolutely correct in asserting that there
is no workable UBI under the current
political economy. It would by definition
not meet the needs its proponents claim it
could because private (and non-profit!)
employers would scream about how it was
raising labor costs and otherwise destroying
the "real" "productive" economy. A UBI after
the revolution? Perhaps. Before? Extremely
problematic.
On the other hand, a JG that emphasized
care work (including paying people to
parent) and energy efficiency would meet
screaming needs in our society and provide
many people with important new skills, many
of which would be transferable to the
private economy. But even here, the
potential pitfalls and problems are
numerous, and there would no doubt be
stumbles and scandals.
Two things:
1. Goverments can hire people without a
JG, the argument that the JG is
necessary for the goverment to find
employees is therefore not a very
convincing argument.
2. Increasing and enforcing reduced
hours an employer can demand of a worker
will strengthen the bargaining position
of all workers. But the people
advocating the JG appears to see the
reduced hours of work as a bad thing?
People get to meet people at work but
the more pleasant interaction (to me)
comes outside of work with the same
people.
How many paid days off should a
person in JG get? As many as Germans
get? Or the Japanese? Or?
When can a person in JG retire? At 60?
65? 70? When does work in JG stop being
a blessing and instead living at leisure
is the bliss? Are we all to be assumed
to live for work?
And finally: If income guarantee is
too liberal, isn't job-guarantee too
much of one of its opposites –
totalitarian?
I think a combination of both would
be best. As has been said many times
here, a lot of current jobs are complete
BS anyway and I don't really want to be
guaranteed a job just so I can take the
dirt out of Boss Keen's ditch and then
put it back in.
Then there's automation which has
already taken away a lot of jobs and
will continue to do so. That's not a bad
thing as long as people are still
getting an income.
As there likely isn't enough
productive work to go around, ideally
there would be a UBI and instead of a
job guarantee, have a minimal job
requirement
. That exact amount of
work required could be tinkered with,
but maybe it's a couple days a week, a
few months a year, or something similar.
You'd have to report to work in order to
be able to collect your UBI when your
work was no longer required.
When you're not doing required work,
you can relax and live off your UBI or
engage in some sort of non-essential
free enterprise.
I don't know what sort of fantasy land
you live in. Being an adult means doing
stuff that is not fun so that you and your
family can survive. This is the nature of
the human condition, from the
hunter-gatherer phases of existence onward.
You see to believe that you have the right
to be paid for doing stuff you enjoy. And
the sort of jobs you deem to be "bullshit
jobs" would seem like paradise to coal
miners or people who had to go backbreaking
manual work or factory workers in sweatshops
in the 19th century. Go read Dickens or Karl
Marx to get some perspective.
Was this meant to be a reply to
cocomaan's post? It seems like it's
replying to something else.
If I understand "Bullshit jobs"
aren't bullshit because they are
unpleasant to do, but because they are
to some significant degree unproductive
or even counterproductive.
Administrative bloat in acedemia is
pretty much the gold standard here from
my perspective. They are great jobs to
have and to do, just useless,
unnecessary, and often counterproductive
ones. High rise office buildings are, I
have always suspected, staffed with a
lot of these well paid administrative
types of bullshit jobs.
The Civilian Conservation Corps is, to my
mind, the single most important civilian
jobs program of the past century because it
provided millions of people meaningful work
at a time when they could not get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
The military also provides a similar
function to many people with no other way
out of a poor situation. It is likely that
one of the reasons that there was such a
huge economic post WW II economic boom is
because many people (men and women) learned
discipline and skills in the military and
industrial work places during WW II.
Problems with deadlines are the key
drivers for productivity. If there are no
problems defined with no deadline, then most
people will simply drift. Occasionally a
Faraday, Edison, or Einstein will show up
who will simply endlessly grind through
theoretical and experimental failures on
ill-defined problems to come up with
something brilliant. Even Maxwell needed
Faraday's publications of his experiments
showing electro-magnetic fields to get him
to come up with his great equations.
The assumption that work (for profit) is good
is very entrenched in culture. The argument that
people aren't motivated to work (Americans are
lazy) is disputed by the sheer amount of
'volunteerism' (unpaid labor).
Corporations are not going to give up on
marketing jobs as they get the vast benefit of
labors efforts.No one system works it will take
employee ownership to counteract the negatives
of private ownership and a ubi along with a job
guarantee and expenditures on leisure to shift
from a consumer based economy.
I always thought that people were supposed to
argue for more than they want and then settle.
Here the argument is always on the right side of
the political spectrum capitalism and private
ownership. Privatize schools and then use a
transfer of wealth through taxes and a captured
labor force to work in them?
Job guarantee all the way, as long as our bosses
aren't dicks. We've already kicked people off of
public assistance and into shitty underpaid jobs. If
having a job is so important, there should always be
a good one available. And anyone that can't or won't
work can live off a limited basic income. Makes for
a smooth and just transition too when our dirty,
dull, and dangerous industries are shut down or
automated out of existence.
Which brings us, along the way, to the need
for meaningful educational opportunities for
those who the system has heretofore failed.
Concrete case in point. My cousin is a young,
single mom in central North Carolina who works
hard but is just barely scraping by. Recently my
wife and I decided to help her out by giving her
the money she'd need to get broadband service so
that she and her teenage daughter could take
advantage of free, high quality online resources
like EdX.org (
https://edx.org
,
check it out if you haven't yet). But actually
getting her hooked up has been a challenge
because the Internet provider Duopoly dropped
their most affordable plans sometime last year
(around $15/mo) so that the cost will now be a
minimum of $40/mo before modem rental, taxes and
whatever other fees the carriers can dream up
(for the techs out there, even DSL costs $35/mo
in that service area). This in a state where
there's a law prohibiting local governments from
providing Internet services to its citizens in
competition with the Duopoly, and where a
private initiative like Google Fiber has
stumbled so badly that it actually has had a
negative impact on price competition.
Of course you might say this is a first world
problem, heck at least we have (semi) affordable
electricity nowadays. But this happens to be a
first world country, where big business pushes
paperless constantly to cut its own costs and a
semester in college is basically the price of a
recent model preowned sedan, _every semester_.
So, a guaranteed job for everyone PLUS the
resources to learns what's needed to obtain a
job that's more than another dead-end.
P.S. Anyone who has ever tried to use free
Internet services at their local library knows
that's not a viable option both because of
restrictive timeouts and bandwidth caps.
Bosses will be more likely to be dicks when
their employees are a captured labor pool. If
you don't comply with commands you'll be out of
your 'job guarantee'.
I support Yves' idea for a basic income as a
default position for disabled people. Although I'll
advocate for something a bit different if possible
for the ambulatory: instead of a monetary income,
let's provide free basic rations and solar panels,
along with a small plot of land in a rural area,
free gardening and household supplies, (including
free seeds that are appropriate for the given area).
And free classes in ecology, cooking, composting,
soil management, blacksmithing, carpentry,
appropriate technolies and any other good stuff I
happen to think of.
As for what the guest poster wrote–well he seems
like a good guy but this social justice warrior
thing is a dying fad that'll provoke a very
unpleasant counter reaction if it keeps up for much
longer. I'm positive that Trump garnered thousands
of votes in those vital Midwestern swing states
thanks to the highly visible sjw activities on
campuses, and theis backlash is only going to
increase as this goes on.
I have a son with a disability. Without a
job, he would watch movies all day.
With a job he becomes a productive part of
society. He loves it and he is dedicated. It
also gives him the opportunity to bond with
people which is hard when you don't have full
autonomy because of some aspects of your
disability.
From my personal experience, a large
percentage of people with a disabilities would
prefer a job to income guarantee.
And many would be quite happy with what most
consider shit jobs.
My mom shops at a store that hires
intellectually disabled people to do things
like shopping cart roundups and bagging
customers' groceries. These aren't the kinds
of jobs that most of us would flock to, but
that's our perspective.
I have to second this. Having worked
briefly with developmentally challenged
students, they have a much easier go of
things when they feel empowered, when they
feel like they have some control over their
lives, despite the challenges they face.
Rendering them even more helpless simply
increases frustration and exacerbates
existing problems.
Which I think should be brought into the
larger argument. It surprises me that any
Marxist worth her salt would glomp onto
this, when, it seems, the purpose is to
further alienate people from the means of
production and control over the political
economy. When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it, you have
to wonder what the underlying reasons might
be. Murray never met a poor or uneducated
person he didn't want to drive into the
ground, so I find it rather curious that he
would suddenly be all for a form of social
welfare.
And as to the boss point above, there's
nothing stopping anyone from making the jobs
program have a cooperative structure. As the
article says, these are all political
choices, not naturally occurring phenomena.
When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it,
you have to wonder what the
underlying reasons might be.
My tankie friends on Twitter think
that basic income is a trojan horse
that's going to be used to try and trick
the American public into ending Social
Security and Medicare. They're usually
right, sadly.
It seems to me as if basic income
would also be a great excuse to chip
away even further at the idea if
public education and single-payer
health care as social goods. If your
parents aren't able to shell out for
them, well, you don't need to be
healthy or literate to recieve UBI.
If there were both a UBI and
a job requirement rather than a
job guarantee, that might solve
the problem you mentioned.
If everyone were required to
work a certain amount in
essential services like housing,
food production, health care,
etc before they could collect a
UBI, that would require a
trained and healthy workforce.
As a disabed person myself I would argue
it's not jobs that disabled people are
necessarily after, it's being able to
actively participate in society in a
contributing, meaningful and productive way,
to be included in something with a purpose,
a purpose you believe in. If income is not
an issue, most people would still engage in
projects. Your son would watch movies all
day only because there is no better role to
play, we are at a transition stage where
disabled people, still considered invalids,
are being discovered to be not so invalid.
I take issue with the notion that
disabled people would be happy to do any
deadend work. We deserve more and better
than that, everyone does.
I'm a deaf person with a talent which
fintech wants and needs, which so happens to
be ensuring our tech is accessible,
inclusve, making it so much better; so
disabled people can truly participate in
society, to do all the same things tech
supposedly does to liberate while making it
truly liberating for all.
But we are also socially responsible for
finding meaningful and significant work for
the talents disabled people actually have,
as opposed to getting them to do something
stupid because it's something to do and
they're disabled and so should be satisfied
with whatever they get. We're not
vegetables, nobody is. So that goes for
non-disabled folks too.
Which brings us to the heart of this
UBI/JG discussion, either you're coming to
this from a perspective of people should
have jobs, any job, cuz they're basically
vegetables or some kind of autonomous
machination which goes through motions and
capitalism doesn't work without those
machinations so there's some kind of moral
imperative to labour or wage slavery, and
the measure or class of a person is whether
they are jobbed machinations/slaves, or
UBI/JG is secondary to the question of are
people as a whole happy and doing what
they'd rather be doing, are they truly
participating in society, as part of the
human project.
That's the reality most corporations are
facing at the moment. The meaning and nature
of "work" itself is undergoing change,
becoming "play", as capitalism shoots itself
in the foot and in the drive for profit
either necessitates socialism and
classlessness, or mass social upheaval and
less profits.
Thank you. It gets tiresome that the
default is people are lazy. People are
describing what seems to be human
nature . the desire to connect with
others and to contribute.
After reading some of these
arguments, and thinking about what I
have experienced and seen, I think there
are merits to both approaches (UBI and
JG). From experience I can't entirely
agree with Yves that people would remain
unskilled and not pursue activities that
engage with others and improve their
lives and skills. Perhaps this is
because I have always been fascinated by
and have known many Hippy communities. I
live in Eugene Oregon now, but grew up
in San Francisco. The running joke I was
told was that all the hippies left SF
and came to Eugene because there were no
jobs :-). I did see hippy groups in SF
that did pretty much nothing but play
all day. They didn't last. However, here
in Eugene I see many lasting legacies of
what they built after they "dropped
out"; many if not most of my favorite
businesses were created by these people:
the alternative groceries like Sundance
(supposedly Whole Foods was purported to
model themselves after this store-bah!)
and Kiva and Growers Market, the
Saturday and Farmers Markets, Tsunami
books. The Oregon Country Fair, the
coops. Not all were directly started by
"hippies" per se but the early hippy
groups did much to create a culture and
an environment that encourages this.
I also know a lot of people here that
work "precariously" and there are times
when work is hard to come by. But these
people do not seem to sit around, they
find other things to do, like learn
about gardening, or get skills
volunteering for Bring recycling (they
do things like find creative re-use or
"decom" houses slated for demolition and
take out useful items), or Habitat for
Humanity, or Center for Appropriate
Transport (bicycle and human powered),
or local tree planting and park cleanup.
They often find work this way, and make
connections, and get new skills. They
don't have to But they want to stay
active and involved.
This is why I think UBI is not such a
bad thing.. I know many people who would
benefit and still do many things like
I've described I also am aware that
there are more general tasks that
society needs doing and that is where
the JG might come in. But maybe Eugene
is too much of an exception?
Of course, all this is besides what
these policies may be used for by the
PTB. That's an entirely different
discussion; here I am arguing the
merits, not the agendas.
I was careful to use the word many
and not all people with disabilities.
My son has an intellectual
disability. He needs to be instructed
and the routine will not come on its own
unless it is well practiced. But as long
as someone is directing, he does great
work.
It is obvious by your post that the
menial job he would enjoy does not
correspond to what you could offer the
world!
I spent hours holding him in the
NICU, worrying about his future until
one day, instead of feeling sorry for
the both of us, I looked around and
noticed a regular guy, apathetic
looking, spending his entire day
cleaning and disinfecting the room then
the thought came to me that someone with
special needs could do the same job and
actually be happy.
Around that time, I read an article
about the problems they were now
encountering with the integration of
people with special needs in France. It
would seem that when the job became
boring, many would just stop showing up
to work Why bother when the state and
society has always been there for
support that's what happens when
individuals never get to feel true
independence.
Any action that produces a good or a
service is a form of work. Hugging is a
service. So are smiling and cleaning a
toilet.
For some reason we have huge trouble
putting monetary value on many of the
most essential services.
We are also having a very hard time
filling the jobs with individuals who
have the right skill set and
temperament.
Oy .. make the disabled do hard labor of
agriculture? Blind? Deaf around heavy machinery?
Wheelchairs on plowed land?
You are proposing this as it seems enriching,
gets them out of your community, and is
economically sound. This lifestyle choice should
apply to everyone. Let any who want do this and
you will have removed people from the labor pool
(made up unemployment number magically goes
down) less resource consumption.
Thanks Yves for pounding this issue. As a former
lazy BIG'er I am naturally wired to stare at my
navel all day. I think at the heart of it we have an
existential problem with toil. Tcherneva's succinct
take-down of BIG vs JG also set me on the
straight and narrow.
Plus she spanks Yglesias
which is always enjoyable.
My biggest quibble with JG is that "work"
often involves needless consumption. Most people
(in America) require a car and 1-2 dangerous
hours a day getting to and from "work".
Personally this is a very good reason NOT to
work.
1-2 dangerous hours a day getting
to and from "work".
The reason I get to work 2 hours before
I'm required to is because I find driving to
work is the most stressful part of my day. I
commute while the roads are quiet. The
deterioration in driving etiquette is
maddening. It is dog eat dog out there. The
fact that we are all flying around at 70 MPH
in 4,000 pounds of steel and glass is lost
on most drivers.
I think there should be an indicator
on the dashboard showing the probability
of surviving a frontal impact at your
current road speed, people might slow
down as they saw the number approach
zero
"If you are extraverted and need to be around
people during the day, it's hard to create enough
opportunities for interaction on your own."
People have all sorts of mental quirks, but to what
extent do we rig society to handle them? As a
justification for work, this one sounds expensive.
We are social creatures. That's not a quirk,
just a fact. The average work environment
already has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal, no need
for a radical redesign.
As for costs – unemployment imposes
devastating costs in sickness, addiction, crime,
etc. JG is a no-brainer. It's been tried with
great success in Argentina. It works. There's a
slogan for ya:
Work
Works
.
Well, OK, but we all vary in the level of
our sociability. Some need people around
them all the time others value their
solitude and still others are in between.
That's not a quirk, just a fact.
One that you're overstating.
The average work environment already
has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal,
Actually, it is a big deal since noise
and lack of privacy are two of the biggest
problems in today's workplaces, particularly
those with "open work space" designs. I
speak from personal experience here.
I'd rather be out in the woods spending my
time growing fruit trees. I hate people–and
reading above about all the inspirational work
the government would be giving me and the people
I'd have to be around while while doing it left
me wondering about whether or not going postal
would be a good idea.
Secondly, the wishlist I saw above for
everything the government is supposed to be
doing to help people was pretty scary. Ehile the
intentions might be good, power like this given
to government never, ever turns out well for the
people. As an example, let's say Scott waved his
magic wand and suddenly Trump had all the power
and authority he needed to accomplish everything
on Scott's list today. Alright, now try to
imagine just how awful the next four years would
be. Not good!
I sympathize with the desire to just be
alone and do your own thing–I'm like that as
well–but I think you're missing an important
aspect of the argument, one which Tcherneva
makes more forcefully, which is that there
is a knock on benefit of people being more
engaged in public life: they are harder to
politically disenfranchise. I wouldn't be
surprise if one of the reasons why elites
are so gung ho about UBI is that it would
serve to further alienate people and
fragment communities, thus preventing them
from organizing anything like meaningful
resistance to state power.
Also, Ferguson kind of already addressed
this:
What if private industry's rejection
of workers freed the public to organize
social labor on capacious, diverse, and
openly contested premises?
The problem with a JG and that line
of argument, is that JG does not propose
to engage people more in public life
than an Unconditional Income, as an
Unconditional Income is by definition,
far more inclusive of all kinds of work
that people may do for others.
You may even do things that nobody in
a society approves of, with an
Unconditional Income, like trying to
prove that the world is round, not flat.
JG got nothing on enabling people to
be active citizens. It's a policy to
look backwards, or it's so inclusive
that it's basically an unconditional
income to everyone. You gotta be willed
to take a long shot sometimes
(increasingly often, looking at the
world as it is today and might
increasingly be tomorrow), to properly
empower people so they can be active
citizens.
How about we have more public housing I
would like to see boarding houses come back
but another option could be monastery type
living? There could even be separate ones
for men, women and families that way you
could select a monastery that is focused on
agriculture and you could have space away
from women.
I sometimes have incredibly vivid
dreams. One of them I hade a couple of
years ago was somewhat apocolyptic;
something had happened (unknown) and I
was in a dilapidated city of middlin'
size. The blocks of cheek-by-jowl houses
and storefronts were all boarded up. But
I entered one and found that 1) they had
been connected by knocking down walls
between them, and 2) the
Interior
Of the block was completely open. All
the buildings faced inward (no boarded
windows) and that had been transformed
into a Commons with gardens, vegetables,
corrals, parklands, small outbuildings.
Maybe something like that .
It would never happen but eminent
domain should apply to abandoned
buildings. If it's been unused for x
amount of years, it's raffled off
for public use . housing, education
etc. Heck, it could apply to
manufacturing. If a corp wants to
leave, don't let the door hitcha,
but that building is going to the
employees as a coop as competition
is as good for the goose as it is
for the gander.
I would imagine more people will
be having dreams like yours if
things keep declining and people try
to imagine what's next.
Actually I know a few artist who won the
Guggenheim Award and I beg to differ. Art is not
something that given bunch of money produces great
work. It comes with time and time spent
contemplating and thinking. Most of the artists who
won had to work to pay the bills before. Many were
teachers and many still are. There are so few fine
artists who just make art. The 1980s really pulled
the wool over non-artists eyes.
Case in point since getting the grant, not right
after of course, Cara Walker made one the best
pieces of her career. A Subtlety, or the Marvelous
Sugar Baby, an Homage to the unpaid and overworked
Artisans who have refined our Sweet tastes from the
cane fields to the Kitchens of the New World on the
Occasion of the demolition of the Domino Sugar
Refining Plant.
Job guarantee maybe, but not corvee. We can have
jobs for everyone, if we build pyramids. Forced
labor is totalitarian. But entitlement and free
lunches are destructive of society. Neo-liberalism
involves entitlement and free lunch for some people,
and for some countries (I see what you are doing to
everyone else USA, GB, Germany, Japan). Entitlement
isn't just for individuals. I love my work, as long
as it is "sort of" a free choice. Economic necessity
works for most of us, and while wage and debt
slavery aren't fun, they are both better than
chattel slavery.
In a country like the USA, the only limit on
socially useful, meaningful work for everyone is
the will and creativity to do it. Off the top of
my head I can think of more programs that could
be implemented than people to fill them.
I agree. But the problem seems to reside
in the link between the services and the
hard goods.
One is unlimited while the other is
limited so the human tendency is to use
money from the unlimited side and
consume/stock up/hoard the hard goods
creating a scarcity.
I don't see how we can solve that problem
with property rights as they are protected
now.
In my mind, land and resources would have
to be a common good why should someone get
the waterfront property or more arable land
or pools of oil just because of a birthright
or some other non sharing policy.
Going even further, why should some
groups/countries benefit from resources
while not sharing with others?
Lots of sharing problems to deal with
nationally and globally before we get it
right
For the last few decades, our system has
been based on debt to income and debt to
GDP. Those nations and individuals who
loaded up on it did ok . so we did not think
of the fair distribution of resources.
But now that debt levels are hitting what
we consider ceilings we will be changing the
rules of the game you know what happens
when someone decides to invent their own
rules in a board game midway through the
game!
All this to say that even if we guarantee
jobs the physical world of resources will
constrain us.
There needs to be a shift from work
and consumption to leisure. Leisure is
infinite . walking trails, biking
trails, parks, movies/music in the parks
(our community puts up a big screen and
a 150 or so show up with lawn chairs,
snacks and blankets), art shows,
community theatre, festivals, music,
picnic areas, chess/checkers concrete
tables .
I want to start a game library: sort
of a pub/restaurant with games. Have a
bite, beer and a game of scrabble. I
like the idea of pub nites with quiz
events. If there were public buildings,
gathering spaces would not have to make
a 'profit', public health would be the
benefit.
"What if public works affirmed inclusion,
collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?
"What if we radically affirmed our dependence on
the public institutions that support us? What if we
forced government to take responsibility for the
system it already conditions?
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?"
First, thanks for this article – this is a good
and interesting debate to have.
It makes me suspicious that the author's sort of
trump-card, climactic 'takedown' of UBI is a series
of questions rather than answers. Things which even
the author can't figure out the answer to,
apparently, so how can they expect UBI to have the
answers.
Think about the answers (i.e. in terms of, policy
changes to people's material lives) to the questions
posed above. What would any of those policies look
like? Who knows?
My point is, it's easy to make things (including
UBI) look dumb by comparing them to impossibly high
vague standards like "no limits to how we can care
for one another."
If the author had a better more concrete,
specific reason why UBI is bad, they would have used
that, yeah?
In my view, Unconditional Incomes answer
these questions without being wasteful of human
life, and with being unconditionally pro-labor,
as opposed to being conditionally pro labor as a
JG would be. JG only empowers labor that is
recognized immediately, by some body of people
who do not represent the valuations of all who
are part of society.
Unconditional Incomes recognize labor that
only later might generate appreciable results,
and it recognizes broad valuation of the fine
grained process where it is societally
worthwhile, as individuals perceive it. If
understood as enablement and pay for all labor
related time, unconditionally.
Pay beyond that would be representation of
how much respect you command, how much you
desire to obtain monopoly incomes, and how much
you might hate a job. But not the labor value.
That's what unconditional incomes can provide.
To the guy writing open source for a greater
benefit to many, to the hardworking construction
worker whose job involves a lot of undesirable
factors (for which he may demand additional
comensation), to the superstar/superbrand owner
who seeks to maximize customer awareness and
monetization with a blend of natural and
artificial marketing and monopolization
strategies, and to the guy who strategically
maximizes market incomes to do even greater
things for society than what he could be doing
with just writing open source.
On that note, thanks Amazon for pushing the
envelope. At least for the time being. We can
financially burden all of these market/rent
incomes to provide unconditional (labor)
incomes, to ensure that there's not too much
emphasis on just cashing in on your good (brand)
name and market position. Coca Cola is a prime
example for what such a cashing in would look
like. Customers are beasts of convenience,
unless there's breakthroughs that radically
improve on some process of delivery or
production, that somehow isn't taken notice of
by the big brand, before another active citizen
takes the opportunity to compete by help of it.
tl;dr: No to turning society into a glorified
Arnish settlement, yes to Amazon as it is today,
though with a higher tax burden, yes to
unconditional incomes, yes to political
activism, independent research, parenting work,
work for being a decent person among equal
people that may look however like you chose.
BIG was tried before with disastrous results.
When a BIG program can be proven to address its
deep and complex past failure, it may be worth a
try. I agree with Yves on when and where an IG
is appropriate until someone somewhere test
drives a better one.
Don't worry, most UBI experiments and
proposals nowadays aren't 'Income
Guarantees' but rather Unconditional
payments to all, or Tapered negative income
tax proposals (britain's RSA has a UBI
equivalent NIT proposal like that at least),
on top of which people could earn more. Only
experienceing regular taxation or a modest
clawback rate of the benefit.
UBI is commonly understood to not be a
top-up to the same point for everyone as the
speenhamland system was, which of course
destroys motivation to expose oneself to a
strenuous environment, when you can't
actually get compensated for your troubles.
Any sensible person would tell you that the
speenhamland system was an insane offer to
the people, it asked of people to work for
free, basically.
By what mechanism does UI prevent
employers from bidding down wages? As
Yves post form last year says, "Taxes
would therefore need to be increased to
offset those effects. The best tax
outcome you could expect would be a
progressive tax on income. Thus the end
result in a best-case scenario would be
tantamount to a means-tested BIG,
graduated so as to avoid any sudden
cutoff for someone who wanted to work.
Thus the result (whether achieved
directly or indirectly) is likely to
resemble Milton Friedman's negative
income tax, with the zero tax rate set
at a living wage level." Meaning the UI
just pushes free money into an otherwise
unchanged system incentivized from the
top down to soak that money back up and
out.
So pushing more money into the system
just inflates the system while
sustaining the ongoing upward
redistribution.
Thus: "The trouble is that
Livingston's "Fuck Work" falls prey to
an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically Liberal social ontology,
which reifies the neoliberal order it
aims to transform. Disavowing modern
humanity's reliance on broadscale
political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology
predicates social life on immediate and
seemingly "free" associations, while its
critical preoccupation with tyranny and
coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so
many Universal Basic Income supporters
on the contemporary Left, Livingston
doubles down on this contracted
relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance,
Livingston's triumphant negation of work
only compounds neoliberalism's two-faced
retreat from collective governance and
concomitant depoliticization of social
production and distribution."
It sounds like it's is going to be a lot of work
- to abolish work.
Who's gonna do all the work involved? LOL.
If you think of sub-cultures where nobody works -
like ancient Roman nobles, Europes aristocrats,
gang-bangers, southern antebellum planters– mostly
they got into fights about nonsense and then killed
each other. That is something to consider.
The crap jobs will be the easiest to get rid
of, but then we won't have any necessary goods
and services. The Romans knew this, which is why
they had a pretty good run before collapsing.
OTOH, with so much more humanity getting
their creative juices going, we could end up
with lots and lots of art. There would be so
much art, it would probably be given away for
free!
Then there is the start your own biz path.
I've been keeping an eye on our local self serve
dog wash. The sign outside changed to "Self
Service Pet Wash". Has me wondering what's that
all about. Expanding the biz into cats,
hamsters, parrots and turtles maybe? Good to see
success in the entrepreneurial class, but then I
wonder if that's really for everyone and there
may need to be some larger organizational
structure geared towards producing some more
complex thing or service. Dunno, but that could
be food for thought as a next step for analysis
in this whole job creation subject.
If anybody actually expects to get paid
for their "art", that's when all hell will
break loose.
A self-service dog wash is interesting,
but if you let a dog wash itself it may not
do a good job. Dogs hate to get washed. I'm
not sure if this is gonna work.
Kwame Anthony Appiah talks about the end to
duels in his book on Honor. It's interesting
stuff.
One takeaway I remember is that the lower
classes actually began to clamor for an end to
the idea that murder was okay if you were in the
upper classes, since dueling was a matter of
challenging, preserving, and reifying an upper
class. The other way to look at it is that the
lower classes wanted in on the action.
It also ended when everyone was embarrassed
and fed up that their leaders were slaying each
other by night.
Great philosophical thougths are cauught. In the
Moderbator!
Even the moderbator is already working to thwart
illumination and enlightenment. That should be a
lesson of some sort. I'm not sure what though. That
wouldd mean mental work. I'll do it but it's still
kind of early. I'll do it later.
Yup. There is a big difference between work in a
Capitalist ecosystem and work in an Anarchistic
ecosystem. In the first you have to ask for a
Universal Basic Income and equality, etc. In the
second there is no need to ask for it.
So maybe "F@ck Work" is really "F@ck Capitalism"
or "F@ck Authoritarianism", but they just don't
quite get it yet.
Agreed that what the author is really saying
is f@ck capitalism. Pretending it's all about
the current fad for neoliberalism ignores the
reality that neoliberalism is simply old
fashioned laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses. The problem with left utopianism is
that human nature works against it. So the
author's "what ifs" don't carry a lot of
intellectual punch. What if we all loved each
other? Well, we don't.
Personally I'd rather just have the BIG and
the freedom. The Right may be just as paranoid
as the Left when they claim all forms of
government social engineering are totalitarian
but there is a grain of truth there. Neither
side seems to have a very firm grasp of the
human
problems that need to be solved in
order for society to work.
"neoliberalism is simply old fashioned
laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses"
I think it has worse excuses, actually.
No excuses. There is no excuse for the
centrally managed wealth extraction in the
name of "markets" that we have been seeing
since Bill Clinton made nice with Goldman
Sachs in the 1990s.
While MMT correctly conceives of money as a
limitless resource, what it doesn't take into
account is the fact that continuing to allow vast
accumulations of the stuff at the top of the economy
inevitably translates into political power.
And I suspect that those with such power,
principally the financial industry, will work
assiduously to reinforce conventional notions of
money as finite, which in turn enhances their power
and their ability to profit from widespread misery.
That is the taproot of The Big Lie – keeping
the masses convinced of money scarcity, which
goes hand-in-hand with scare mongering on the
national "debt". The delegitimizing of the
national currency as worthless IOUs, mere
"scraps of paper".
The .01%, who have accumulated political
power through this con, will not just give it
up.
It reminds me of the (probably apocryphal)
anecdote about Queen Victoria hearing about
Darwin's Origin of Species and asking, "Is it
true?"
"I'm afraid so, your majesty."
"Well then, let's hope the commoners don't
find out!"
Great piece!!! Does anyone know of any proposals
or white papers for a State or City wide Job
Guarantee? Laboratory for democracy or something. I
know the lack of a currency printer throws a wrench
into the MMT aspects and clearly there would be
migration affects greater than on a national scale,
but I think that a state or local program would
almost necessarily have to come before a national
one, or at least would make the debate about a
national one less arduous. This is something I am
pushing with my state house rep (Raymond Dehn, who
recently threw his hat in the ring for Minneapolis's
Mayoral contest)
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?" MMT
acknowledges that the availability of natural
resources is a limit to money creation and, overall,
economic growth. I wish this essay had addressed
this issue, as I believe we are in the post-peak oil
world and still not facing how this fact -peak oil
when properly understood is an empirical fact to me-
is dismembering modern political economies.
Simultaneously, this destruction is proceeding in
accord with neoliberal domination.
And most of the time, when I see MMT, it
seems to be associated with projects and
investments that are incredibly energy and
resource intensive.
Many MMT supporters seem to work on the
assumption that the US will always have the
right to consume an inordinate share of global
energy and resources.
It seems that many attempting to
pigeonhole MMT, seem to not recognize the
role of fiscal policy to regulate and
modulate. Full employment need not correlate
to consuming " an inordinate share of global
energy and resources." IMHO, how the term
"growth" is often used with and within
"economics" seems misleading and
disingenuous.
It seems to me we have done that no work
experiment for .OH, 70 years. Its called social
security.
Maybe every single person on social security doesn't
have as many friends as they should – the book
"Bowling Alone" as well as many other publications
about the isolation of modern society address what
is a problem. But many people with jobs are
isolated, as well as not getting social interaction
on and off the job. I think if you asked the average
social security recipient, the first thing they
would want is mo' money, mo' money, MO' MONEY.
People on social security can work, volunteer,
follow a hobby or take up one. In CA old folks used
to be able to "audit" college classes, where you
could attend for free but get no credit. Alas, no
longer the case (as well as when I was young and
went to college, it was dirt cheap – how did it get
so frigging expensive?).
And to the extent old people are isolated, more
money would do a lot to allow old people to take
cruises and other activities that cost money and
give people the opportunity to mingle. I imagine
young people would do the same, especially if the
stress of wondering where there income would come
from was removed.
There were people at work who said they would
never retire because they wouldn't be able to fill
their time. I find that just sad. Somebody has to
give these people something to do because in there
whole lives they have never developed any interests?
I was very lucky to have a career that was
interesting. It was also frustrating, difficult, and
stressful, and besides the friends from work, there
were also the assh*les. It was fine for 26, but it
was time to move on. And though I thought about
getting another job, I have found that not working
is ..WONDERFUL.
I also do not work, and I enjoy it. I need to
find things to fill my days (other than NC), but
this is complicated by not having competence in
the local language. I could speed up my
citizenship process by getting a job here in
Uruguay, but I don't want to go back to a
stressful life feeling like I don't have enough
time to do interesting things. So learning
Spanish is my job now.
I think if you asked the average social
security recipient, the first thing they
would want is
mo' money, mo' money,
MO' MONEY
.
And to the extent old people are
isolated, more money would do a lot to allow
old people to take cruises and
other
activities that cost money
and give
people the opportunity to mingle
I suppose it's a much larger ambition in many
ways, but I've always thought that a more
worthwhile aim than a basic income guarantee
would be de-financialization. Private health
care and car-based communities put people in the
very precarious position of having to worry
about their cash buffer for lots of basic
survival needs. I live in a country with
government-funded health care, and even though
my income is a fraction of what I made when I
lived in the US it would be easy for me to quit
my job and live on savings for an extended
period of time, since the only real expenses I
have are food and housing, and the other
necessities like clothes or bicycle repairs can
be done on the cheap when one has lots of free
time.
Public transit connecting libraries, parks,
community colleges, and other public forums
where people can socialize are much preferable
to cruise ships!
I too have for years now enjoyed and
sometimes struggled with not having to work for
money. While my ability to engage in many
activities is currently limited by health
issues, I have previously gone back to
university and earned a degree, learned fine
woodworking, volunteered as a charity fundraiser
and done field work for the wolf reintroduction
program in Yellowstone. I have also spent a lot
of time reading, gardening, fixing up my old
house, watching movies, political activity,
fishing, motorcycling, the list could go on.
However, to be honest, I do suspect that the
years I did spend working and the earnings
therefrom did lay a foundation upon which I
could build an edifice more of my own choosing.
Make work more interesting and rewarding by
directing it toward esthetic goals. Promote the arts
and education at all ages. Put art, design, music,
theater, & crafts back into the curriculum, identify
people with special skills & talent, support them
and provide venues for learning, exhibits &
performances with low- or no- cost access to the
public. Elevate culture to the epitome of human
achievement in all walks of life and expand
involvement. Discourage commercial television
watching, especially for children.
I do wonder if there's a kind of circular
argument to this piece, or at least there is a
continuum between this job guarentee solution and
the basic income. In one sense, it is said that
people cannot be left to themselves to create
because they just won't. So the solution is some
kind of municipal creativity, an entitity which does
the creating and then forces people to work on its
projects in return for income. The more top down
'new deal'-like this is, then it looks like a JG
system. If it can be bottom up, it more closely
resembles a basic income.
There is little difference, in the real world,
between sitting on a park bench all day and sitting
in a cubicle filling out spreadsheets, because most
jobs are already busy-work. So most people are
already doing corvee labor in a totalitarian
civilization: digging holes and filling them up
again. In a typical office building, the only people
who are doing real, productive work are the janitors
and maintenance engineers.
I think it would take a long time, as in many
generations, to begin to know who we are, what we
would do and be without a Protestant work-ethic.
It's almost impossible for most to imagine life in
some other form just as it's impossible for most
to imagine a democratic process, even within just
one party. Idle time scares the beejesus out of so
many people I know. I've watched people 'retire' and
move to these beautiful Ozark mountains for
decades and do nothing but destroy them, over and
over again, out of boredom and idle guilt. I can't
remember the last time I cut down a live tree for
firewood.. since there are always mountains of
forrest being laid to waste.
But we must face the fact most work is useless,
crap, BS, and or outright destructive. MIC and
Insurance come to mind immediately. To enforce human
work for the sake of it is to perhaps destroy the
big blue marble host at – at best an highly
accelerated rate. If we keep making ourselves act
like drones our world will continue to look like
it's what we are doing / who we are. Just drive down
any street America built post 1960 looking for
something esthetically pleasing, somewhat unique,
that isn't either mass produced or designed to fall
apart in a few decades or less.
Or maybe with a jobs guarantee we should just
outlaw bulldozers, chainsaws, 18 wheelers, private
jets, dwellings/offices with more than four units,
and large farm equipment.
If we are going to force labor then give every
man and woman a shovel or a hoe with their HS
diploma – not a gun, not an office for predatory
FIRE purposes. That way we wont destroy ourselves so
quickly.
Joni sang..
You don't know what you've got
'til it's gone
. What about the people who never
knew what was there to begin with? Will some of us
live long enough to morn the passing of parking
lots?
"A job at a decent wage, set by public policy,
will eliminate at least 2/3 of poverty. we can then
work on eliminating the rest thru compassion."
Doesn't strike me as morally agreeable to reduce
the right to nature and ideas that anyone may reason
to have, to a matter of compassion.
"This is the high road that can increase
productive capacity"
Giving people an unconditional income and letting
people earn money on top, could also increase
productive capacity, and having a JG scheme in place
might as well reduce productive capacity where it
pretends to people that they're doing something
important, when they're not. Overpaying work can be
a disservice to the people and society alike. Let
individuals themselves tell others how much they
think something is worth, in respect and in monetary
terms. We just need to equip people with money (that
maintains relevance in relation to the aggregate of
all money), for that.
The high road that can increase productivity is a
commitment to enabling people as individuals,
unconditionally, to make economic expressions,
rooted in their rights to nature.
""Modern Monetary Theory contends that money is a
boundless and fundamentally inalienable public
utility. That utility is grounded in political
governance. And government can always afford to
support meaningful social production, regardless of
its ability to capture taxes from the rich. The
result: employment is always and everywhere a
political decision, not merely a function of private
enterprise, boom and bust cycles, and automation.
There is therefore nothing inevitable about
underemployment and the misery it induces. In no
sense are we destined for a "jobless future."""
Wouldn't it be interesting if it took someone
like Trump to get the fact that money is a public
utility into the public mindset.
This is a strong and powerful tool. Seems like it
could be up his alley.
But Trump WONT do that. He's very much a
super 1% elitist who thinks of people as winners
and losers. He thinks the government is like a
business that has to balance its books and "live
within its means" (means = tax receipts + fees).
Trump is NOT an MMTer. He's closer to gold
standard idiots in the GOP (whether they
actually want the gold standard to return or not
means nothing the idea that the federal budget
needs to be balanced is 100% outgrowth of the
gold standard dinosaur days so they are ALL
goldbugs at core).
I agree with many of the skeptical views above.
In the endeavor to provide equitable incomes an
underlying problem is who decides what industries or
groups get funded from the taxes collected? Is there
private capital? How do you keep certain people from
manipulating the system to assure they can collect
more wealth than someone else?
All of these might be questions may be resolved
with strict laws, but I can recall in my childhood
such laws and such cultures that assured a more
equitable system, but these too were corrupted by
people who wanted to "keep their wealth", because
"they earned it", or inherited it ("Death to the
Death Tax!").
This utopia sounds good on paper, but it appears
to me that the execution is most times corrupted by
the connected and powerful.
In any case the most difficult task in this
process will be getting enough power to take any
sizable wealth away from the "shareholders" , ie
owners, to redistribute in a society controlled via
media and laws by our lords and masters.
I think we need to remember just how modern is
the concept of "work" is that's being debated here.
In nearly the whole world a century ago (and still
in parts of it today) people didn't have "jobs",
they raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in the
community and family etc. and were in general
productively occupied most of the time. Even with
the factory system, and the beginning of paid
employment, many of the workforce were skilled
craftsmen with years of training and a high social
status. The modern idea of a "job" as an unnecessary
task carried out to gain money you don't need to buy
things you don't want would have seemed
incomprehensible. Indeed, there are parts of Africa
today where a "job" is what you get to earn enough
money to live on for a while and that's it.
The real problem then is a sense of purpose in life.
There's some evidence that work can and does provide
this, provided that work is minimally useful and
satisfying. Certainly, the psychological damage from
long-term unemployment as well as the psychological
dangers of working alone are extensively documented.
But the opposite is also true – work can make you
ill, and the line between guaranteeing work and
forcing people to work is a treacherously easy one
to cross.
It would be better to move towards thinking about
what kind of society and economy we want. After all,
much of the contemporary economy serves no useful
purpose whatever, and could be dispensed with and
the assets invested elsewhere. Without getting into
the magic wand thinking in the article, it must be
possible to identify a host of things that people
can usefully "do", whether or not these are "jobs"
in the traditional sense.
You're onto something here. Reading the post
and comments, I couldn't identify what was
bothering me, because when I think of work now
(having been out of the paid workforce a while)
I think in terms of things that make life more
livable, either in very practical ways or
through learning, enlarging my view of the
world, and I don't in the least want to see the
elimination of that kind of work. It's the other
kind of work, that expects you to feign devotion
to the manufacture or marketing of widgets, that
probably needs to be largely eliminated (I won't
say wholly, as there may be some for whom
widgets are mentally rewarding). The author
seems too certain of what needs to change and
how. I think you're right that we need to give
it more thought.
The author of this review misses much of what
James Livingston is all about. JL spends some
time discussing how to imagine a meaningful life
and he refers to Freud (!) that we need work and
love. If work is no longer available then how do
we imagine love as the basis for social
solidarity? OR, is solidarity another way to
express love? The author's concerns for wonky
policy BS takes us down the wrong path into the
scrubland of intellectual vapidity.
And btw Fred Block has devastated the
Speenhamland analogy long ago. I think not many
folks have gotten beyond Andre Gorz on these
topics.
Yeah, I'm sort of skeptical of BIG
myself, but I really don't think
Speenhamland is a good comparison at all.
Speenhamland had too many particularities
that separate it from most modern BIG
proposals IMHO.
I think we need to remember just how
modern is the concept of "work" is that's
being debated here. In nearly the whole
world a century ago (and still in parts of
it today) people didn't have "jobs", they
raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in
the community and family etc. and were in
general productively occupied most of the
time
Too true. If you want to see what someone's
ancestor most likely did, look at their last
name. Tanner, Cooper, Fuller, etc.
People used to have a right to land with
which they could harvest building supplies,
roofing supplies, food to feed themselves, fuel
to heat and cook, raise livestock for food and
fiber. The people have been stripped of the
rights and ability to provide for their basic
needs by force. They now have to have a job, the
majority of their labor benefits someone else,
to gain money in a system where nearly every
transaction isn't just monetized but
exploitative.
There is still the pull towards liberalism .
to develop a hierarchy of needs, and a hierarchy
of the usefullness/productiveness/profitability
of tasks. There needs to be a ubi along with the
jg. When the focus is on developing hierarchies,
the end result will be a rigid bureaucratic
structure and the use of force to ensure
compliance.
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?"
To do this, I propose that we give everyone,
unconditionally, an income, as expression of their
potential (and natural desire) to contribute to
society, and all the prerequisite time that goes
into that, and for the very contributions
themselves. An unconditional labor value derived
income, for all. An income that both enables all
kinds of work, and pays that labor value in the same
stroke.
From there, additional earned income becomes a
matter of how much respect you command, how well you
utilize monopolies, and how much you hate your job
and require compensation for how much you hate it.
But the labor value would be accounted for,
unconditionally.
In a world where there's superstars (and
superbrands) who command respect and natural
monopolies to make a lot of money, and people
writing open source for the greater benefit of
everyone else predominantly, it makes sense to make
a statement such as that, about labor value, and to
pay it to everyone. Mothers and fathers in active
care of their children too, could agree, I'd
imagine.
But making a list of things that you think might
be cool for society, and try to have tangible
compensations for only those, seems problematic, if
not to say, counterproductive. Rather recognize ALL
the time that people spend, to be decent people
among fellow people, to educate themselves formally
and informally, be it in the process of being an
entrepreneur in a broader sense, at times. A sense
of justice that can only be achieved by the state
deciding for its people what is purposeful, will
fall flat on its face when it comes to practicality,
unless we have artifical super intelligence. Because
you will have to literally know better than the
people, what they will appreciate to what extent.
And you don't know that. Neither do I.
There's great things in community/entertainment
space happening today, that nobody was thinking of 5
years ago. Because people still have some power to
recognize things as individuals, that others do, as
purposeful (as much as aggregate demand is
increasingly in a sorry state, as the result of a 3+
decade long trend that seems to still keep going.
Just fixing that issue would already help a lot.). I
say we should build on that, and further empower
people in that direction. Which to me means to give
money to all the people of the society, so they can
more directly at times, express what benefits
society, that is themselves. And for macro
economic/long term considerations we can always have
direct democracy.
The sorts of psychopaths that tend to be in
control of modern human societies clearly prefer
money as a tool of social control to money as any
sort of public utility that would facilitate
individual productivity and/or affirm human dignity,
whether in the context of neoliberal derangement or
not. That's the view from the long-frozen Rust Belt
and certainly nothing new in history.
It also appears that any human capacity for moral
innovation is easily constrained by our basic
feces-hurling primate OS, particularly if said
primates consider money to be something finite and
concrete.
On the real balance sheet, though, the sweet old
Earth likely can't afford a JG for a population of 7
billion, at least not under any current or
previously existing model of labor exploitation. As
all NCpeeps know, we're resource-constrained, not
dollar-constrained.
So we arrive back at the same old power
relationships, the coercion, desperation and ecocide
to which we have been accustomed, in the absence of
any disruptive® (!) moral innovation. Can anyone
suggest that modern humans have demonstrated a
capacity for moral innovation outside of prison
camps? Actual, non-hopey-changey varieties of moral
innovation? If so, is that capacity retarded only by
misperceptions regarding the nature of money?
Retarded perhaps by an exceptional propaganda
system? One might only answer that for themselves,
and likely only until the SWAT team arrives. It
seems unlikely that some rational and compassionate
bureaucracies will be established to compensate in
their stead: Congress is wholly unable to formulate
policy in the public interest for very good reasons,
none of them admirable. It seems the social economic
entities they protect require human desperation just
as much as they require currency liquidity or
juvenile male soldiers.
In the absence of representation, rule of law or
some meager rational public policy, a reproductive
strike may be a better individual approach than FW,
as not having children avoids the voluntary
provisioning of debt slaves into a corrupt and
violent system of social control. There is also the
many ecologically salubrious effects of less humans
and a potential opportunity to avoid being forced to
constantly sell one's labor at a sharp discount.
Couples I know, both having made catastrophic errors
in career choice (education, research, seriously
OMG!), are able to persist with some degree of
dignity only and precisely because they have avoided
begetting, in the very biblical sense, more debt
slaves.
The author's contention that JG is better than
BIG is persuasive; however I am not convinced that
JG is best implemented by the govt. We have had
systems like these, e.g. USSR, and it is very clear
that central planning for large masses never works.
Why not implement that JG as saying that the govt
guarantees X $/hr for up to T hrs per week for every
one, no matter where they are hired. Advantages:
– small business owners are afforded breathing space
to get their dreams off the ground,
– Walmart workers will walk off if Walmart doesn't
up its game significantly beyond $(X x 4T) per
month,
– Non profits will be able to afford to pay
volunteers more reliably,
– People who want to be alone / not work can setup
their own "self preservation" business and earn the
minimum $X/hr for T hrs.
This form of decentralized planning may help
implement JGs in a more sustainable manner than
centralized planning. It also puts a floor on
minimum income. Also, when combined with barriers on
moving jobs outside the US, it helps provide a
sharper threshold on how good automation needs to be
in order to replace labor.
X and T can be the $15 and 40 hrs that is being
implemented in big coastal cities, progressive
states. Or it could be set to just above poverty
level earnings, depending on how comfortable we are
in letting go of our Pilgrim/Protestant shackles.
Past time to kill off the Protestant Ethic.
The future has always supposed to be made up of
robots doing scut work while people get to chill
out and NOT do shit work.
The job race is why people STILL don't take
enough vacation or full vacation. It is why they
feel COMPELLED to not take days off because if
they do, their boss will hold it against them
come promotion time.
Not all jobs are worth doing and forcing
people to take them doesn't do anyone any good,
and makes people into commodities, THE biggest
problem with neoliberalism. People are NOT
commodities and work should NOT be a measure of
one's value. CEOs outrageously overvalue
themselves for doing little or nothing while
engineers and workers they mistreat do
EVERYTHING. That is neoliberalism and capitalism
in a nutshell.
Guaranteed Basic Income ends that. Set a max
income so there will be no more over-compensated
CEOs AND provide a decent income for EVERYONE,
gratis, so they are not forced to take a job
polishing the shoes of the useless eater CEOs.
I prefer the Universal Basic Income guarantee to
the Work guarantee. The Work guarantee guarantees
MAKEWORK
. "Here, have a broom
and do some sweeping with it. Somewhere."
Or, "Here's a desk and a pile of papers with
staples in them. Remove the staples."
"You! Toss this box of trash in the street and
you, walk behind him and pick it up and put it in
THIS box!"
Fuck work. In particular, fuck MAKEWORK. A job,
ANY job, just to say you have a job is CRAP.
Better: Income guarantee. Period. Gratis. If a
company wants you to do a job for them then they
will have to provide incentive enough to get you to
take the job. You don't HAVE to take a shit job
because you have a guaranteed income so employers
better offer a sweat deal like good pay and benefits
(and LESS pay and benefits for CEOs, etc the lazy
do-nothing self-entitled class).
The basic income and the job guarantee are
natural complements. In terms of the acquis that any
sovereign state must comply with (the UDHR,) you
have the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of [your]self and of
[your] family, and the right to free choice of
employment. Two different rights. That means work
should be an option.
The idea is, you're not on the treadmill, it's
the state that's on the treadmill, working
continually to fulfill your economic and social
rights. It's the state that bears duties, you have
rights. So if you want to do something and you need
structure, knock yourself out, work for the state or
some customer or boss. If you want to spend all the
time you can with your kid before the mass
extinction starves her, that's fine too.
When you ask people, Do you exist for the state,
or does the state exist for you? People are quick to
say, I don't exist for the state, that's
totalitarianism! But people seem to accept that they
exist for the economy. They accept that their life
depends on acceptable service to the labor market.
Just like I don't exist for the state, I don't exist
for the economy. The economy exists for me. That is
the revolutionary import of the ICESCR (and that's
why the US strangled Venezuela when Chavez committed
the state to it.)
Human rights is a complete, consistent and
coherent alternative to neoliberal market worship.
The idea sounds so strange because the neoliberal
episcopate uses an old trick to get people to hold
still for exploitation. In the old days, the
parasitic class invented god's will to reify an
accidental accretion of predatory institutions and
customs. Everybody nodded and said, I see, it's not
some greedy assholes, it's god's will. After a while
everybody said, Wait a minute. The parasitic class
had to think fast, so they invented the economy to
reify an accidental accretion of predatory
institutions and customs. So now you submit to that.
Suckers!
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's
inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
I am in favor of the job or income guarantee
program. We really should not and do not need to
work nearly as much as is common in U.S. (nevermind
the even more repressive slave labor in Asia). The
claim that "algorithms and robotization will reduce
the workforce by half within twenty years and that
this is unstoppable" seems like a pretty likely
scenario at this point. Why have we been working for
millenia to build this advanced civilization, if not
to relax and enjoy it and be DONE slaving away?!
I recently sold everything I had and travelled
around the US for 6 months, and it was delightful. I
was next to broke, but if I had an income guarantee
I could have had way more freedom to stop here and
there, get involved in who knows what, and enjoy
myself with very low stress.
I agree most people will not do anything
productive unless forced, but that is what we need
to finally work on: ourselves and our crippling
egos. The world is plenty advanced technologically,
we have made incredible inventions and that will
continue to happen, but people need to start working
on themselves inwardly as well or the outward world
will be destroyed.
What does being productive mean? Besides
making a profit for an oligarch. Everything is
work. Cook for yourself, not work. Cook for
someone else, work. Garden for yourself, not
work. Garden for someone else, work. Travel for
yourself, not work. Travel for someone else,
work. etc.
Has anyone run the numbers for a 4 day work
week, or 3? How about if full time work were
lowered to 30, 25 hours per week?
Automation was supposed to free up labors
time. Workers have participated in designing
automation, installing automation, testing
automation and training others for automation.
It's time labor takes the share of their labor
and if oligarchs get the permanent financial
benefit of labors efforts to automate, so does
labor.
We found [the pyramids] were not built by
slaves. They were built by well-paid skilled
labour. The problem in these early periods
was how to get labour to work at hard tasks,
if not willingly? For 10,000 years there was
a labour shortage. If people didn't want to
work hard, they could just move somewhere
else. The labour that built temples and big
ceremonial sites had to be at least
quasi-voluntary even in the Bronze Age c.
2000 BC. Otherwise, people wouldn't have
gone there.
We found that one reason why people were
willing to do building work with hard manual
labour was the beer parties. There were huge
expenditures on beer. If you're going to
have a lot of people come voluntarily to do
something like city building or constructing
their own kind of national identity of a
palace and walls, you've got to have plenty
of beer. You also need plenty of meat, with
many animals being sacrificed.
Archaeologists have found their bones and
reconstructed the diets with fair accuracy.
What they found is that the people doing
the manual labour on the pyramids, the
Mesopotamian temples and city walls and
other sites were given a good high protein
diet. There were plenty of festivals. The
way of integrating these people was by
public feasts.
Now, you can argue that labor is no longer
scarce, so the logic doesn't apply. But you
can't generalize that people won't work unless
forced; it's not true.
I see what you mean, but they built the
pyramids because they needed money to
survive, the beer and festivals is an added
bonus. Whether you call it slave labor or
working for a decent wage, the premise is
the same – your survival depends on doing
the work so you do it.
The distinction I think relates to what
waldenpond says above. People want to feel a
sense of ownership, meaning and community
around what they are doing, and then they do
it of their own volition, so it is not seen
as work. This is something quite rare in
todays labor market, but it doesn't have to
be that way.
Looks like people chose to work not just
for pay but for pay and the addition of
leisure activities (cooking, eating,
partying) and a sense of community.
I agree with this. I think of the people I
knew who had to work at two or more jobs, full
time or more, to be "allowed" to be a painter,
musician, writer, or performer, etc. It is
sapping us culturally, not to let the creative
people have time to do what they were born to
do. And I think at least a little of this lives
in all of us. There are things that we are born
to do. How much does our society let us be who
we are?
similar arguments made regarding all of the lands
in North and South America.
"they aren't using it for anything productive.
best we take it from them."
who are you to say what is productive in another
person's life? if we had a meaningful culture and
education in this debased society, each of us would
be able to make the decision about what exactly we
find most productive and worthy of our efforts, and
what isn't. since we have no public lands to hunt
and gather and fish and farm and live upon, we are
forced into this economic system. i find it odd as
heck that two people who are effectively
"unemployed" find it better for everyone else to be
chained to a money-for-work scheme. will you both be
signing up for some labor-conscription hours? will
it be compulsory for all, without ability to opt-out
except for complete physical/emotional disability
with no gaming by the rich? (my apologies if you all
do not agree, and i have misrepresented your
positions)
more rationales to make people love their chains,
please. because we know how this would work out:
rather as it does now when you sign up for
unemployment/food assistance-you MUST take the first
job for the first abuser that comes along and makes
an offer for you.
I think we should separate the wage/salary
component of work from social welfare provisioning.
Namely, universal health care and universal old age
pensions. The more you think about it in the context
of today's various pressures, the more sense it
makes.
Social welfare provisioning isn't just the
means of exchange, it's the ability to acquire
the necessities of survival of shelter, food,
heat etc. If the focus is just within the
capitalist system of private ownership and rent
seeking is not ended, the welfare is merely
passed through and ends with the oligarchs.
I have several questions, concerns with UBI. One
is if everyone is given a base salary who is to
decide what that amount should be. Will it be
indexed to inflation, what will it do to inflation,
specifically, inflation for housing, food,
healthcare.
Will a UBI be an excuse to gut all social
contracts/guarantees. Who will make those decisions.
What will happen to social services (public schools,
hospitals), and social needs (clean water, air,
sanitation/trash, police/fire protection).
Primitive human cultures traditionally "worked"
to fulfill their needs only 3-4 hours a day. The
rest was leisure, taking care of children/elderly,
and rest. I agree, that a large percentage of time
at work is wasted time due to hour artificial 9:5
business schedule. If we all perform work from home,
what will the hours be like? Will we have more time
to meet our neighbors and become more involved in
the community or will we be shut in our houses all
day not seeing anyone. Will the family unit be
stronger, since people will not have to travel
across the country for job opportunities and stay
near each other.
Who will be provided with basic education, will
that be free or for a fee, or will the idle
relatives and neighbors collaborate to provide it.
Will some neighborhoods/regions be more organized
and successful than others? Will all the "lazy
people" filter into future slums riddled with crime
and disease? Who will provide for them if there is
no longer any social services.
I'm sure someone has already posted this, but my
idea was to have a huge Federally funded
Environmental Cleanup Dept. that essentially hires
mass amounts of people to literally clean streets,
parks, waterways, sort through trash, etc. It's
needed, its relatively low skill labor, but at least
it could provide an alternative to Welfare, which is
a huge huge scam that's imprisons people in the
lowest class (cant own a car or land).
Obviously this doesn't solve the entire issue,
but it's become pretty clear that just having a huge
Welfare state will not work longterm, as Yves
mentions, the detriments are huge and real:
unskilled lower class, unmoivitated lower class
(more free time = more criminal activity), etc.
Again with the Americans are lazy myth. I
would argue criminal activity is more related to
being blocked by state violence from accessing a
thoroughly monetized society (poverty) and a
purposely bled social structure than from
boredom.
If a person has access to a share of the
resources of a society (shelter/food and
enrichment) they will not likely commit crime.
For those that want a rush, we can add some
climbing walls etc. ha!
For those that are critical of the'welfare
state'.. it isn't natural nor accidental, it's
purposeful. Stop putting in so many resources
(legal, political, financial) to create one.
What do you actually want to work
for
?
In early societies, you worked so that you and your
family and community didn't die, and could produce
the goods needed to make society function. But
that's changed, and today we work to earn the money
to pay other people to carry out these same
functions. We even work to earn the money to pay the
costs of working to earn the money to pay others. We
buy a house (which in the past would have been
constructed by the society) and have to pay to
travel to work to earn the money to pay for the
house, and then the insurance on the house, and the
business clothes, and then buy a car and insurance
on the car because the time we spend working and
traveling means we have to shop at the supermarket
instead of local shops, and then we pay a garage to
maintain the car, and we pay someone to look after
our garden because between trips to the supermarket
we don't have time ourselves, and then we pay
someone to look after our children because we work
so hard earning money to pay for childcare that we
have no time actually left for caring for our
children. And the idea is that everybody should be
guaranteed the right to do this?
In the drive towards totalitarianism, universal
basic income is the carrot that enables the
abolition of cash. India is the trial run. Although
after seeing what's transpired in India, it's
probably safe to say the ruling elite have wisely
concluded that it might be better to offer the
carrot before rolling out the stick.
There seems to be this false dilemma between the
impending "end" of work and the unlimited potential
of creative job creation. BOTH of these utopias are
apocalyptically blind to history.
In 2017 what counts as "work" - a job, wage labor
- is inseparably bound up with the consumption of
fossil fuel. A "job" consumes "x" barrels of oil per
annum. Lumps of labor are directly quantifiable in
lumps of coal.
The ecological implications of this are clearly
that the dilemma does not resolve itself into a
choice between different schemes for redistributing
some proverbial surplus. That "surplus" represents
costs that have been shifted for decades and even
centuries onto the capacity of the ambient
environment to absorb wastes and to have resources
extracted from it.
Can such an extractive economy continue
indefinitely? Not according to the laws of
thermodynamics.
A UBI might reduce the dire incentive to
"work or starve" at the same time as it
increases opportunities and incentives to
pursue the bright elusive butterfly of
"meaningful work." That would be good if it
was the only consideration. But it is not.
There is also an inconvenient truth about
the relationship between productivity and
fossil fuel consumption. In the industrial
economy, larger amounts of better work mean
more greenhouse gas emissions. Productivity
is a double-edged sword.
We have long since passed the point where
capital "diminishes labour time in the
necessary form so as to increase it in the
superfluous form; hence posits the
superfluous in growing measure as a
condition – question of life or death – for
the necessary."
Currently, world-wide carbon emissions
per year are roughly double what can be
re-absorbed by oceans and plants. This is
not to say that the re-absorption by oceans
is harmless –it leads to acidification. But
clearly more than half of the emissions are
superfluous to sustainability. Lo and
behold, carbon emission increase in virtual
lockstep with hours of work. In the U.S.,
the correlation between the two has been
about 95% over the last quarter century.
Don't even think of using the
"correlation doesn't prove causation"
gambit. We are talking about a "water is
wet" relationship. Fossil fuel is burned to
do work. Period. Not just correlation -
identity.
So the bottom line is we either need to
cut hours of work at least in half or the
remaining hours need to be
less
productive not more.
Reducing the hours of work also implies the
potential for redistributing hours of work to
create more jobs from less total work time. This
of course flies in the face of "
laws
of political economy
" that were discredited
more than a century ago but nonetheless get
repeated as gospel
ad nauseum
by
so-called "economists."
I like where this guy is trying to go, but I
think I'd put forth more of a
F-k Stupid Jobs
with Bad Pay
ethos, rather than
F-k Work
. Too oversimple too broad. Work, on some
level, is really all there is. The idea of a
collective life devoted to perpetual and unbridled
hedonism just sounds like death by holiday to me;
just as awful as working yourself into the grave.
As to Yves' notion - probably this is true.
Pressure is a fine agent for production and problem
solving; but I suspect that stagnant period might
just be a byproduct of the initial hangover. Guilt
is an engine that hums in many of us - I think most
people feel guilty if they spend an entire day doing
nothing, let alone a lifetime tossed away.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens
as the financial sector "high value" employees
continue to be replaced by passive investing and
computer programs. I suspect this process will
result in a rethinking of many of these people about
the value of work and job security.
I have been stating this also. So many tasks
are open to automation in law, healthcare
(remote offices), writing (algorithms), teaching
(one math teacher per language!), policing. I
can even imagine automated fire trucks that can
pinpoint hot spots, hook up to hydrants, open a
structure and target.
What we need is not a guaranteed minimum income,
but universal ownership of key productive assets,
like Alaska does with its Permanent Fund. These
assets could include partial citizenship ownership
of our largest corporations. All paid work would be
on top of this.
As Peter Barnes says, "With Dividends and Liberty
for All". Thus everyone would have a base income,
enough to prevent extreme poverty, but still with
plenty of incentives for jobs. Note: You'd also need
to make it illegal for these "dividends" to become
security for loan sharks.
I spent a lot of time over the holidays thinking
about the future of human work and came to this
conclusion: As we move forward, robots and other
automation will take over a lot of human work, but
in 3 areas I think humans will always have an edge.
I'll summarize these 3 essentially human endeavors
as: "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll", but each of
those is a proxy for a wider range of human
interactions.
"Sex work" (compare to "Fuck Work" from this
essay) means what it says, but is also a proxy for
human interactions such as massage, phys-therapy,
etc. Robots will encroach on this turf somewhat
(serving as tools), but for psychological reasons,
humans will always prefer to be worked over by other
humans.
Drugs is a proxy for human appreciation of
chemical substances. Machines will of course be used
to detect such substances, but no one will
appreciate them like us. The machines will need us
to tell them whether the beer is as good as the last
batch, and we must make sure to get paid for that.
Finally, rock-and-roll is a proxy for human
artistic expression as well as artistic
appreciation. Robots will never experience sick
beats the way we do, and while they may produce
some, again for psychological reasons, I think
humans will tend to value art created by other
humans above that produced by machines.
The good news is that the supply and demand
balance for these activities will scale in a stable
way as the population grows (or shrinks). So I think
the key is to make sure these types of activities
are considered "work", and renumerated accordingly
in our bright J.G. future.
"... Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support. ..."
"... How will we provide adequate human and material resources for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address climate change? ..."
"... no amount of volunteerism, goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. ..."
"... I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really want to do for 8 hours a day. ..."
"... Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal, regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution ..."
By Scott Ferguson, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida. He is also a Research
Scholar at the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. His current research and pedagogy focus
on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism, aesthetic theory; the history of digital
animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published
at Arcade
James Livingston has responded to
my critique of his Aeon essay,
"
Fuck Work ." His response was published in the Spanish magazine
Contexto y Accion . One can find an English translation
here . What follows is my reply:
Livingston and I share many political aims. We each wish to reverse wealth polarization, to alleviate
systemic poverty, and to enable diverse forms of human flourishing. The professor and I disagree,
however, on the nature of contemporary economic reality. As a consequence, we propose very different
political programs for realizing the sort of just and prosperous society we both desire.
In his rejoinder to my critique, Livingston proudly affirms his commitment to Liberalism and makes
a Liberal understanding
of political economy the basis of his proposed alternative to the neoliberal catastrophe. Deeming
government an intrinsically authoritarian institution, he situates civil society as a realm of self-actualization
and self-sufficiency. The problem, as he formulates it, is that while capitalist innovation has made
it possible to increasingly automate production, the capitalist class has robbed us of our purchasing
power and preserved a punishing wage relation. This prevents us from enjoying the fruits of automated
labor. Livingston's solution is to reject an outmoded Protestant work ethic; tax the unproductive
corporate profits that fuel financial markets; and redistribute this money in the form of a Universal
Basic Income (UBI). The result: each member of civil society will be liberated to associate, labor,
or play as they please.
Like Livingston, the left has long flirted with Liberal dreams that autonomous and self-regulating
associations might one day replace the difficulties of political governance. After the Great Recession,
these dreams have
returned . They imagine algorithms and robots to be politically neutral. They seek a life of
shared luxury through automatically dispensed welfare payments. This sounds nice at first blush.
However, such reveries are at best naive and, at worst, politically defeatist and self-destructive.
Abandoned and abused by neoliberal governance, today's pro-UBI left doubles down on neoliberalism's
do-it-yourself caretaking. It envisions delimited forms of monetary redistribution as the only means
to repair the social order. Above all, it allows anti-authoritarianism to overshadow the charge of
social provisioning.
Livingston's articulation of this dream is especially fierce. As such, it crystallizes UBI's central
contradiction: Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government
out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support.
This position, which fails to rethink the structure of social participation as a whole, leaves
disquieting political questions unanswered: How will we provide adequate human and material resources
for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address
climate change? How do we preserve a place for the arts outside of competitive MFA programs
and speculative art markets?
Such questions are unforgivingly realistic, not pie-in-the-sky musings. And no amount of volunteerism,
goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government
can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. And while algorithms
and robots are powerful social instruments, we cannot rely on automation to overcome extant logics
of
discrimination and exclusion . To do so is to forget that social injustice is politically conditioned
and that government alone holds the monetary capacity to transform economic life in its entirety.
I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really
want to do for 8 hours a day.
I've already got too much time to fritter away. I'm fairly certain, giving me more time and
money to make my own choices would not make the world a better place.
Hmm. No "sarc" tag Really?? More free time and money wouldn't be a benefit to you and your
surroundings? That's hard to believe. To each their own I guess.
I can see it both ways. Most people see that as sarcasm but I have more than a few friends
whose jobs are probably the only thing keeping them out of jail. Idle hands being the devil's
plaything and all.
For instance, the last thing you want to give a recovering addict is a lot of free time and
money.
As a recovering addict, I must vehemently disagree with ur statement. I would love to have
as much money and free time on my hands to work on the fun hobbies that keep me sober like Political
Activism, Blogging, Film, etc.
At no point in the "Job Guarantee" discussion did anyone advocate forcing you to go to work.
However, if you decide to get ambitious and want a paid activity to do that helps make society
a better place to live, wouldn't it be nice to know that there'd be work available for you to
do?
Right now, that's not so easy to do without lots of effort searching for available jobs and
going through a cumbersome and dispiriting application process that's designed to make you prove
how much you REALLY, REALLY want the job.
For me, the real silver bullet is the moral/political argument of a Job Guarantee vs. Basic
Income. Job Guarantee gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment and those employed and
their loved ones will vigorously defend it against those who would attack them as 'moochers'.
Also, defenders can point to the completed projects as added ammunition.
Basic income recipients have no such moral/political defense.
The guaranteed jobs could be for a 20 or 30 hour week. I fear they won't be as most job guarantee
advocates seem to be Calvinists who believe only work gets you into heaven though.
It's a common 'argument' by people defending status quo. They claim something is ridiculous
and easily disproven and then leave it at that. They avoid making argument that are specific enought
to be countered, because thay know they don't actually have a leg to stand on.
Limitless may not have been the best word. Of course the government can print money till the
cows come home; but MMT recommends stopping when you approach the real resource constraint.
Sloppy language does not help so thank you. So the next question is how do constraints (natural
or other) affect spending power under MMT, is it asymptotic, is there an optimum, discontinuities?
The other major issue is that although spending power is controlled by legislatures it must
be recognized that wealth creation starts with the work of people and physical capital, not by
the good graces of gov't. MMT makes it sound as if money exists just because gov't wills it to
exist, which is true in the sense of printing pieces of paper but not in the sense of actual economic
production and wealth creation. Taxes are not the manner in which gov't removes money but it really
is the cost of gov't sitting on top of the economic production by people together with physical
capital.
Help me understand your last sentence. So, if I'm a farmer, the time I spend digging the field
is economic production, but the time I spend sitting at my desk planing what to plant and deciding
which stump to remove next and how best to do it, and the time I spend making deals with the bank
etc, these are all unproductive hours that make no contribution to my economic production?
Yes, Jamie. And as you point out, Ferguson is giving us a better definition of "productive".
He is not saying productivity produces profits – he is saying productive work fixes things and
makes them better. But some people never get past that road bump called "productivity."
The author is making some assumptions, and then goes and takes them apart. It's possilble (I
didn't read the article he refers to), that the assumptions he responds to directly are made by
the article, but that doesn't make them universal assumptions about UBI.
UBI is not a single exact prescription – and in the same way, JG is not a single exact prescription.
The devil, in both cases, is in details. In fact, there is not reason why JG and UBI should be
mutually exclusive as a number of people are trying to tell us.
and if we talk about governance – well, the super-strong governance that JG requires to function
properly is my reason why I'd prefer a strong UBI to most JG.
Now and then we get a failed UBI example study – I'm not going to look at that. But the socialist
regimes of late 20th century are a prime example of failed JG. Unlike most visitor or writers
here, I had the "privilege" to experience them first hand, and thanks but no thanks. Under the
socialist regimes you had to have a job (IIRC, the consitutions stated you had "duty" to work).
But that become an instrument of control. What job you could have was pretty tightly controlled.
Or, even worse, you could be refused any job, which pretty much automatically sent you to prison
as "not working parasite".
I don't expect that most people who support JG have anything even remotely similar in mind,
but the governance problems still stay. That is, who decides what jobs should be created? Who
decides who should get what job, especially if not all jobs are equal (and I don't mean just equal
pay)? Can you be firedt from your JG job if you go there just to collect your salary? (The joke
in the socialist block was "the government pretends to pay us, we pretend to work"). Etc. etc.
All of the above would have to be decided by people, and if we should know something, then
we should know that any system run by people will be, sooner or later, corrupted. The more complex
it is, the easier it is to corrupt it.
Which is why I support (meaningfull, meaning you can actually live on it, not just barely survive)
Basic Income over JG. The question for me is more whether we can actually afford a meaningful
one, because getting a "bare survival one" does more damage than good.
That's why any JG would have to be filtered through local governments or, more ideally, non-profit
community organizations, and not a centralized government. New York City's
Summer Youth
Employment Program offers a good model for this. Block grants of money are delivered to a
wide range of community organizations, thus ensuring no one group has a monopoly, and then individual
businesses, other community groups, schools, non-profits, etc., apply to the community organizations
for an "employee" who works for them, but the payment actually comes from the block grant. The
government serves as the deliverer of funds, and provides regulatory oversight to make sure no
abuses are taking place, but does not pick and choose the jobs/employers themselves.
I don't see it as either/or. Provide a UBI and a job guarantee. The job would pay over and
above the UBI bit, if for some reason, you don't want to work or cannot, you still have your Universal
BASIC Income as the floor through which you cannot fall.
Private employers will have to offer better conditions and pay to convince people getting UBI
to work for them. They wouldn't be able to mistreat workers because they could simply bolt because
they will not fall into poverty if they quit. The dirtbags needing workers won't be able to overpay
themselves at the expense of workers because they feel completely free to leave if you are a self
worshipping douche.
It seems that over time the "floor through which you cannot fall" becomes just that, the floor,
as the effect of a UBI becomes the universal value, well floor.
Was going to be my response as well, why such absolute yes or no thinking? The benefit of the
UBI is that is recognizes that we have been increasing productivity for oh the last couple millenia
for a REASON! To have more leisure time! Giving everyone the opportunity to work more and slave
away isn't much of a consolation. We basically have a jobs guarantee/floor right now, its called
McDonalds, and no one wants it.
Labor needs a TON of leverage, to get us back to a reasonable Scandinavian/Aussie standard
of living. Much more time off, much better benefits, higher wages in general. UBI provides this,
it says screw you employers unless you are willing to offer reasonable conditions we are going
to stay home.
I'm curious to know if either of these systems work if there is no guarantee of "free" access
to healthcare through single-payer or a national insurance? I'm only marginally informed about
UBI or MMT, and haven't found adequate information regarding either as to how healthcare is addressed.
It seems clear that neither could work in the US, specifically for the reason that any UBI would
have to be high enough to pay insane insurance premiums, and cover catastrophic illnesses without
pushing someone into bankruptcy.
Can anyone clarify, or point me in the direction of useful information on this?
There are different flavors of UBI, most don't mention healthcare at all. Milton Friedman's
UBI flavor prefers that it replace all government spending on social welfare to reduce the government's
overall burden. MMT says there is no sense in not having single payer.
My thought on the last thread of this nature is that if UBI were ever enacted in the U.S.,
healthcare access would become restricted to those with jobs (and the self-employeed with enough
spare income to pay for it). You don't have to be healthy to collect a subsistence payment from
to the government.
Here in Canada we have universal healthcare, as well as a basic income guarantee for low income
families with children and seniors. There is a movement to extend that as well,
details of one plan here .
In theory, I think it could be possible for the JG to build and staff hospitals and clinics
on a non-profit basis or at least price-controlled basis, if so directed (*huge* question, of
course - by what agency? govt? local councils?). Ditto housing, schools, infrastructure, all kinds
of socially useful and pleasant stuff. However, the way the US tends to do things, I would expect
instead that a BIG or a JG would, as others have pointed out, simply enable employers to pay less,
and furthermore, subsidize the consumption of overpriced goods and services. IOW, a repeat of
the ACA, just a pump to get more $$ to the top.
The problem is not the money, but that the Americans govern themselves so poorly. No idea what
the cure could be for that.
Fixing worker pay is actually VERY easy. It's purely a political issue. You tie corporate taxes
to worker compensation. More specifically, you set the maximum compensation for CEOs at NO MORE
than (say) 50x average worker pay in their corporation (INCLUDING temps AND off-shored workers
IN US DOLLARS no passing the buck to Temp Agencies or claiming that $10/day in hellhole country
x is equivalent to $50k in the US. NO, it is $10/day or $3650/yr, period). At 50x, corporate taxation
is at the minimum (say something like 17%). The corporation is free to pay their top exec more
than 50x but doing so will increase the corporate tax to 25%. You could make it step-wise: 51-60x
average worker pay = 25% corporate tax, 61-80x = 33% corporate tax, etc.
It is time to recognize that CEO pay is NOT natural or earned at stratospheric levels. THE
best economic times in the US were between the 50s to early 70s when top tax rates were much higher
AND the average CEO took home maybe 30x their average worker pay. We CAN go back to something
like that with policy. Also, REQUIRE that labor have reps on the Board of Directors, change the
rules of incorporation so it is NOT mainly focused on "maximizing profit or shareholder value".
It must include returning a social good to the local communities within which corporations reside.
Profits and maximizing shareholder value must be last (after also minimizing social/environmental
harm). Violate the rules and you lose your corporate charter.
There is no right to be a corporation. Incorporation is a privilege that is extended by government.
The Founders barred any corporate interference in politics, and if a corporation broke the law,
it lost its charter and the corporate officers were directly held responsible for THEIR actions.
Corporations don't do anything, people in charge of corporations make the decisions and carry
out the actions so NO MORE LLCs. If you kill people due to lax environmental protections or worker
safety, etc, then the corporate officers are DIRECTLY and personally responsible for it. THEY
made it happen, not some ethereal "corporation".
Durned hippys imagine an IRON boot stamping on a once human face – forever. OK, now everybody
back to the BIG house. Massa wanna reed yew sum Bible verses. We're going to be slaves to the
machines, ya big silly!
I'm sceptical whether a guaranteed job policy would actually work in reality. There are plenty
of historical precedents – for example, during the Irish potato famine because of an ideological
resistence to providing direct aid, there were many 'make work' schemes. You can still see the
results all along the west coast of Ireland – little harbours that nobody has ever used, massive
drainage schemes for tiny amounts of land, roads to nowhere. It certainly helped many families
survive, but it also meant that those incapacitated by starvation died as they couldn't work.
It was no panacea.
There are numerous practical issues with make work schemes. Do you create a sort of 2-layer
public service – with one level permanent jobs, the other a variety of 'temporary' jobs according
to need? And if so, how do you deal with issues like:
1. The person on a make work scheme who doesn't bother turning up till 11 am and goes home
at 2.
2. Regional imbalances where propering region 1 is desperately short of workers while neighbouring
region 2 has thousands of surplus people sweeping streets and planting trees.
3. What effect will this have on business and artistic innovation? Countries with strong welfare
systems such as Sweden also tend to have a very high number of start ups because people can quit
their jobs and devote themselves to a couple of years to develop that business idea they always
had, or to start a band, or try to make a name as a painter.
4. How do you manage the transition from 'make-work' to permanent jobs when the economy is
on the up, but people decide they prefer working in their local area sweeping the street?
I can see just as many practical problems with a job guarantee as with universal income. Neither
solution is perfect – in reality, some sort of mix would be the only way I think it could be done
effectively.
To provide some context for passers-by, this seemingly too-heated debate is occurring in the
context of the upcoming Podemos policy meeting in Spain, Feb 10-12.. Podemos seems to have been
unaware of MMT, and has subscribed to sovereign-economy-as-household policies. Ferguson, along
with elements of the modern left, has been trying to win Podemos over to MMT-based policies like
a Jobs Guarantee rather than the Basic Income scheme they have heretofore adopted rather uncritically.
(Of course Spain is far from "sovereign", but that's another matter :-(
1) Fire them
2) Prospering region 1 isn't "short on workers" they just all have private jobs.
3) What a good argument to also have single payer healthcare and some sort of BIG as well as the
JG
4) private companies must offer a better compensation package. One of the benefits of the JG is
that it essentially sets the minimum wage.
Yeah, those are pretty good answers right off the bat. (Obviously I guess for #1 they can reapply
in six months or something.)
Plutonium- I feel like true progress is trading shitty problems for less shitty ones. I can't
see any of the major proponents like Kelton, Wray or Mitchell ever suggesting that the JG won't
come with it's own new sets of challenges. On the overly optimistic side though: you could look
at that as just necessitating more meaningful JG jobs addressing those issues.
I was writing that on my phone this morning. Didn't have time to go into great detail. Still,
I wanted to point out that just because there will be additional complexities with a JG, doesn't
mean there aren't reasonable answers.
1. If you fire them its not a jobs guarantee. Many people have psychological/social issues
which make them unsuitable for regular hours jobs. If you don't have a universal basic income,
and you don't have an absolute jobs guarantee, then you condemn them and their families to poverty.
2. The area is 'short on workers' if it is relying on a surplus public employee base for doing
things like keeping the streets clean and helping out in old folks homes. It is implicit in the
use of government as a source of jobs of last resort that if there is no spare labour, then you
will have nobody to do all the non-basic works and you will have no justification for additional
infrastructure spend.
3. You miss the point. A basic income allows people time and freedom to be creative if they
choose. When the Conservatives in the early 1990's in the UK restricted social welfare to under
25's, Noel Gallagher of Oasis predicted that it would destroy working class rock n roll, and leave
the future only to music made by rich kids. He was proven right, which is why we have to listen
to Coldplay every time we switch on the radio.
4. This ignores the reality that jobs are never spread evenly across regions. One of the biggest
problems in the US labour market is that the unemployed often just can't afford to move to where
the jobs are available. A guaranteed job scheme organised on local govenment basis doesn't address
this, if anything it can exacerbate the problem. And the simplest and easiest way to have a minimum
wage is to have a minimum wage.
1) Kelton always talks about a JG being for people "willing and able to work." If you are not
willing I don't really have much sympathy for you. If you are not able due to psychological factors
or disability, then we can talk about how you get on welfare or the BIG/UBI. The JG can't work
in a vacuum. It can't be the only social program.
2) Seems unrealistic. You are just searching to find something wrong. If there is zero public
employment, that means private employment is meeting all labor demands.
3) I have no idea what you are going on about. I'm in a band. I also have a full-time job.
I go see local music acts all the time. There are a few that play music and don't work because
they have rich parents, but that's the minority. Most artists I know manage to make art despite
working full time. I give zero shits what corporate rock is these days. If you don't like what's
on the radio turn it off. There are thousands of bands you've never heard of. Go find them.
4) Again, you are just searching for What-If reasons to crap on the JG. You try to keep the
jobs local. Or you figure out free transportation. There are these large vehicles called busses
which can transport many people at once.
Yes these are all valid logistical problems to solve, but you present them like there are no
possible solutions. I can come up with several in less than 5 minutes.
For a more practical first step--how about getting rid of/slashing regressive and non-federal
income tax deductible sales taxes? shifting that tax burden to where income growth has been.
Democratic Party-run states/cities are the biggest offenders when it comes to high sales taxes.
universal basic income in the West + de facto open borders won't work. just making a reasonable
hypothesis.
There might be a psychological benefit to a jobs guarantee vs. UBI. There are a lot of people
that would much rather "earn" their income rather than directly receiving it.
Which of these tools do you posess:
( ) Machete, pick-axe, big old hemp bag
( ) Scattergun, hound, mirrored shades
( ) Short-shorts, bandeau top, knee pads
( ) RealTree camo ACUs, FLIR scope
( ) ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, fast car
A JG would begin to rebuild the trust and cooperation needed to have a society based on justice
instead of might makes right. Human life is based on obligations- we are all responsible to one
another for the social system to work. The problem is always about how to deal with cheaters and
shirkers. This problem is best solved by peer pressure and shaming- along with a properly functioning
legal system.
I get a kick out of the "make work" argument against a JG. With planned obsolescence as the
foundation of our economic system, it's just a more sophisticated way of digging holes and filling
them in again. Bring on robotic automation, and the capitalist utopia is reached. Soul crushing,
pointless labor can be sidelined and replaced with an unthinking and unfeeling machine in order
to generate profits. The one problem is people have no money to buy the cheep products. To solve
that dilemma, use the sovereign governments power to provide spending credits in the form of a
UBI. Capitalism is saved from is own contradictions- the can is kicked farther down the road.
The obligations we have to one another must be defined before any system organization can take
place. Right now, the elite are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree with those who see a need for both programs. I think the critique of UBI here is a
good one, that raises many valid points. But I have trouble with a portion of it. For instance:
by eliminating forced unemployment, it would eradicate systemic poverty
treats 'poverty' as an absolute when it is a relative. No matter what programs are in place,
there will always be a bottom tier in our hierarchical society and those who constitute it will
always be 'impoverished' compared to those in higher tiers. This is the nature of the beast. Which
is why I prefer to talk about subsistence level income and degrees above subsistence. The cost
of living may not be absolutely fixed over time, but it seems to me to be more meaningful and
stable than the term 'poverty'. On the other hand, in a rent seeking economy, giving people an
income will not lift them out of poverty because rents will simply be adjusted to meet the rise
in resources. So UBI without rent control is meaningless.
Another point is that swapping forced unemployment for forced employment seems to me to avoid
some core issues surrounding how society provides for all its members. Proponents of the JG are
always careful to stress that no one is forced to work under the JG. They say things like, "jobs
for everyone who wants one". But this fails to address the element of coercion that underlies
the system. If one has no means to provide for oneself (i.e. we are no longer a frontier with
boundless land that anyone can have for cheap upon which they may strike out and choose the amount
of labor they contribute to procure the quality of life they prefer-if ever was such the case),
then jobs for "everyone who wants one" is simply disingenuous. There is a critical "needs" versus
"wants" discussion that doesn't generally come up when discussing JG. It's in there, of course,
but it is postponed until the idea is accepted to the point where setting an actual wage becomes
an issue. But even then, the wage set will bear on the needs versus wants of the employed, but
leaves out those foolish enough to not "want" a job. Whereas, in discussing UBI, that discussion
is front and center (since even before accepting the proposal people will ask, how much?, and
proper reasons must be given to support a particular amount-which again brings us to discussing
subsistence and degrees above it-the discussion of subsistence or better is "baked in" to the
discussion about UBI in a way that it is not when discussing the JG).
While UBI interests me as a possible route to a non-"means of production"-based economy, the
problem I see with it is that it could easily reduce the populace to living to consume. Given
enough funds to provide for the basics of living, but not enough to make any gains within society,
or affect change. It's growth for growth's sake, not as to serve society. Something is needed
to make sure people aren't just provided for, but have the ability to shape the direction of their
society and communities.
Where I work @3/4 of the staff already receives social security and yet it is not enough seems
to me human satisfaction is boundless and providing a relative minimum paper floor for everyone
is just. Yet the way our market is set up, this paper floor would be gobbled back up by the rentier
class anyway. So unless there is a miraculous change in our economic rent capture policies, we
are screwed
So yes, just describe to people precisely what it is – a 'paper' floor not something that
has firm footing yet acknowledges inequities inherent in our current currency distribution methods.
And of course couple this with a jobs guarantee. I have met way too many people in my life that
'fall through the cracks' .
why is no one bemoaning the rabid over-consumption of the complainers who suck up much more
than they will ever need, hoarding and complaining about people who do not have enough? the real
problem is rampant out of control parasites
But Ferguson should also adknowledge that Livingston has some points.
Why on earth we politically put limits to, for instance, public earning-spending while do not
put any limit to the net amount that one person can earn, spend and own?
Upward redistribution is what occurs in the neoliberal framework. UBI is distribution. Bear
in mind that even in the best employment conditions, not everybody can earn a salary. 100% employment
is unrealistic.
The people marketing UBI and MMT have hundreds of years of attempted social engineereing to
overcome. I referring to the " why people want what they want and why do they believe what they
believe." Why?
The only suggestion I have is that, since everybody has a different relationship to the concept
of work, the populations involved need to be smaller. Not necessarily fewer people, but more regions
or nation states that are actually allowed to try their ideas without being attacked by any existing
"empire" or "wanna be empire" via sanctions or militarily.
It is going to take many different regions, operating a variety of economic systems (not the
globalized private banking extraction method pushed down every one's throat whether they like
it or not) that people can gravitate in and out of freely.
People would have the choice to settle in the region that has rules and regulations that work
most for their lives and belief systems (which can change over time).
Looking at it from the perspective that there can be only one system that 300 million plus
people (like the USA) or the world must be under is the MAIN problem of social engineering. There
needs to be space carved out for these many experiments.
First, congratulations to everyone who managed to read this all the way through. IMO both this
(and the guy he's responding to), seem like someone making fun of academic writing. Perhaps with
the aid of a program that spits out random long words.
FWIW, when I lived in Japan, they had a HUGE, construction-based make-work program there, and
it was the worst of both worlds: hard physical labor which even the laborers knew served no purpose,
PLUS constant street obstruction/noise for the people in the neighborhoods of these make-work
projects. Not to mention entire beautiful mountains literally concreted over in the name of 'jawbs'.
Different thought: I'm not sold on UBI either, but wouldn't it mess up the prostitution/sex
trafficking game, almost as a side effect? Has anyone heard UBI fans promote it on that basis?
The sound and fury of disagreement is drowning out what both authors agree on: guaranteed material
standards of living and reduced working time. If that's the true goal, we should say so explicitly
and hammer out the details of the best way to attain it.
Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal,
regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution
all forms of government and their corresponding programs will fail until that government is
free from the monetary influences of individuals / corporations and military establishments, whether
it be from donations to a political establishment or kick backs to politicians and legislators
or government spending directed to buddies and cohorts
I don't pretend to understand the arguments at the level to which they are written, but at
the basic level of true governance it must but open and honest, this would allow the economy to
function and be evaluated, and then at that point we could offer up some ideas on how to enhance
areas as needed or scale back areas that were out of control or not adding value to society as
a whole
We stand at a place that has hundreds of years of built in corruption into the model, capable
so far of funneling money to the top regardless of the program implemented by the left or the
right sides of society
first step is to remove all corruption and influence from governance at every level until
then all the toils toward improvement are pointless as no person has witnessed a "free market
" in a couple hundred years, all economic policy has been slanted by influence and corruption
we can not fix it until we actually observe it working, and it will never work until it is
free of bias / influence
no idea how we get there . our justice system is the first step in repairing any society
In a capitalist economy, the market rewards things that are rare and valuable. Social media
use is decidedly not rare or valuable. Any 16-year-old with a smartphone can invent a hashtag
or repost a viral article. The idea that if you engage in enough of this low-value activity, it
will somehow add up to something of high value in your career is the same dubious alchemy that
forms the core of most snake oil and flimflam in business.
Professional success is hard, but it's not complicated. The foundation to achievement and fulfillment,
almost without exception, requires that you hone a useful craft and then apply it to things that
people care about. [...] Interesting opportunities and useful connections are not as scarce as
social media proponents claim. In my own professional life, for example, as I improved my standing
as an academic and a writer, I began receiving more interesting opportunities than I could handle.
As you become more valuable to the marketplace, good things will find you.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that new opportunities and connections are unimportant. I'm instead
arguing that you don't need social media's help to attract them. My second objection concerns
the idea that social media is harmless. Consider that the ability to concentrate without distraction
on hard tasks is becoming increasingly valuable in an increasingly complicated economy. Social
media weakens this skill because it's engineered to be addictive. The more you use social media
in the way it's designed to be used -- persistently throughout your waking hours -- the more your
brain learns to crave a quick hit of stimulus at the slightest hint of boredom.
Once this Pavlovian connection is solidified, it becomes hard to give difficult tasks the unbroken
concentration they require, and your brain simply won't tolerate such a long period without a
fix. Indeed, part of my own rejection of social media comes from this fear that these services
will diminish my ability to concentrate -- the skill on which I make my living.
A dedication to cultivating your social media brand is a fundamentally passive approach to
professional advancement. It diverts your time and attention away from producing work that matters
and toward convincing the world that you matter. The latter activity is seductive, especially
for many members of my generation who were raised on this message, but it can be disastrously
counterproductive.
There's a peculiar irony or ironies that I would be speaking, in albeit, limited, fashion about
human work-level and 'benefits' with someone, presumably within a 40-hour workweek culture, on
a fossil-oil-depletion-related site, where such a substance as oil that requires such little work
to extract and produce compared to the (squandered) work and 'benefits' it produces; and where
some of whose members seem especially interested in technology, presumably with the idea that
it somehow augments quality-of-life, such as with regard to efficiency and reducing work… But
no matter…
When we think about work, what are we thinking about and are we thinking the same
thing? What is it? And when many of us 'work', how does it affect our world– what kind of work
are we doing– and might we be sometimes putting 8 loaves of bread on someone else's table for
every 2 we put on ours?
"Did you know that before the Industrial Revolution, the average person worked for about
two or three hours a day? Studies from a wide range of pre-industrial civilisations show similar
data– it takes only about fifteen hours a week to provide for all of our basic human needs.
And that's using hand tools." ~ Walden Effect
"Using the data provided by the United State Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erik Rauch has
estimated productivity to have increased by nearly 400%. Says, Rauch:
'… if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard
of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week.'
…Since the 1960s, the consensus among researchers (anthropologists, historians, sociologists),
has been that early hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed much more leisure time than is permitted
by capitalist and agricultural societies…" ~ Wikipedia
"The important thing to understand about collapse is that it's brought on by overreach and
overstretch, and people being zealots and trying too hard. It's not brought on by people being
laid back and doing the absolute minimum. Americans could very easily feed themselves and clothe
themselves and have a place to live, working maybe 100 days a year. You know, it's a rich country
in terms of resources. There's really no reason to work more than maybe a third of your time.
And that's sort of a standard pattern in the world. But if you want to build a huge empire
and have endless economic growth, and have the largest number of billionaires on the planet,
then you have to work over 40 hours a week all the time, and if you don't, then you're in danger
of going bankrupt. So that's the predicament that people have ended up in. Now, the cure of
course is not to do the same thing even harder… what people have to get used to is the idea
that most things aren't worth doing anyway…" ~ Dmitry Orlov
"We live in an economy which takes 80% of our each new generation and educates that 80%
to obey orders and to endure boredom, and stifles their creativity, and stifles their capacities,
and curtails them. They're systematically crushed by a system which does what? Which fills
slots, and 80% of the slots need people who just do rote tedious repetitive labour at least
at work, and therefore are acclimated to doing that…
…If you're callous to the effects on others, you have a potential to rise. The odds are
that you can 'compete' your way up. If you care and are socially concerned about others, you're
at a tremendous disadvantage. So I think the competitive dynamic that we have does sort of
weed out a set of people for success. But I would say that what it weeds out for success is
not competence, not creativity, not intelligence, but callousness far more often." ~ Michael
Albert
Forget Russian figure skater Julia Lipnitskaia spinning in a blur with her leg impossibly held
straight up against her ear. The sight of skier Bode Miller collapsing with emotion at the end of
a race dedicated to his brother while NBC cameras lingered uncomfortably on the long shot. Or even
jubilant Noelle Pikus-Pace climbing into the stands to race into her family's arms after her silver
medal finish in the Skeleton.
The image that stands out most in my mind during the broadcast of the 2014 Winter Olympics? The Cadillac
commercial with a boxy, middle-aged white guy in a fancy house striding purposefully from his luxurious
swimming pool to his $75,000 luxury Cadillac ELR parked out front while extolling the virtues of
hard work, American style.
"Why do we work so hard? For stuff?" actor Neal McDonough asks in the commercial that has been
playing without cease. "Other countries work. They stroll home. They stop by a café. They take
the entire month of August off. "Off," he says again, to reinforce the point.
"Why aren't you like that? Why aren't WE like that?"
The first time the commercial aired during the Opening Ceremonies in Sochi, the slight pause after
those two questions made me hopeful. I sat up to listen closely.
Was he about to say – we should be more like that? Because Americans work among the most hours of
any advanced country in the world, save South Korea and Japan, where they've had to invent a word
for dying at your desk. (Karoshi. Death from Overwork.) We also work among the most extreme hours,
at 50 or more per week. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average American works about
one month more a year than in 1976.
Was he going to say that we Americans are caught up in what economist Juliet Schor calls a vicious
cycle of "work-and-spend" – caught on a time-sucking treadmill of more spending, more stuff, more
debt, stagnant wages, higher costs and more work to pay for it all?
Would he talk about how we Americans, alone among the advanced economies, whose athletes are competing
between the incessant commercials with such athleticism and grace, have no national vacation policy.
(So sacrosanct is time off in some countries that the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled
in 2012 that workers who get sick on vacation are entitled to take more time off "to enable the worker
to rest and enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure.").
American leisure? Don't let the averages fool you, he could say. While it looks like leisure time
has gone up, time diaries show that leisure and sleep time have gone up steeply since 1985 for those
with less than a high school degree. Why? They're becoming unemployed or underemployed. And leisure
and sleep time for the college educated, the ones working those crazy extreme hours, has fallen steeply.
Americans don't have two "nurture days" per child until age 8, as Denmark does. No year-long paid
parental leaves for mothers and fathers, as in Iceland. Nor a national three-month sabbatical policy,
which Belgium has.
Instead of taking the entire month of August off, the most employers voluntarily grant us American
workers tends to be two weeks. One in four workers gets no paid vacation or holidays at all, one
study found. And, in a telling annual report called the "Vacation Deprivation" study, travel company
Expedia figures that Americans didn't even USE 577 million of those measly vacation days at all last
year.
Center for Economic and Policy Research, May 2013 Center for Economic and Policy Research, May 2013
So as I watched the Cadillac commercial, hanging onto that rich white guy's pause, I was hoping he'd
make a pitch to bring some sanity to American workaholic culture. It wouldn't have been a first for
the auto industry. Henry Ford outraged his fellow industrialists when he cut his workers' hours to
40 a week. (Standards in some industries at the time were for 12-hour workdays, 7 days a week.) Ford
did so because his internal research showed 40 hours was as far as you could push manual laborers
in a week before they got stupid and began making costly mistakes. He also wanted his workers to
have the leisure time to buy and use his cars.
The rich guy takes a breath and smirks. We work so much "Because we're crazy, driven hard-working
believers, that's why."
Bill Gates. The Wright Brothers. Were they crazy? He asks. We went to the moon and, you know what
we got? Bored, he says.
"You work hard. You create your own luck. And you've gotta believe anything is possible." Fair enough.
"As for all the stuff?" he says as he knowingly unplugs his luxury electric car, "that's the upside
of only taking TWO weeks off in August, n'est ce pas?"
I'm a big fan of Richard Bookstaber, the author of the important book A Demon of Our Own Design.
And while I'm glad to see
a rare new post from him, on how to deal with the matter of inequality (as in whether to deal
with the problem ex ante, by creating more equal opportunities, or ex post, by trying to reduce disparities
of outcomes), I found one of the core parts of his discussion, on merit and meritocracy, to be maddening.
In fairness, this isn't Bookstaber's fault; he's working within an established framework of thinking
on this topic.
Repeat after me: in complex societies and organizations, merit is a complete illusion. We nevertheless
pretend to achieve that for reasons of institutional legitimacy, and also, to the extent we can generally
steer people who are fitter on some key axes towards more important or resource-intenisve activities,
for reasons of efficiency. Note that this view is also likely to be more satisfying for individuals,
since it will encourage those who may be less capable in certain ways that are considered important
(intelligence, social skills, empathy) to apply themselves to do better in those areas. So motivated
but less "talented" people have an avenue for their energies (il
faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux…).
But let's not kid ourselves that an idea that has all sort of upside as aspiration and ideology
actually works. Consider what Bookstaber writes, which one can take as an reasonably orthodox view:
I have written various posts on social policy related to the question of whether and how we
redistribute income….
I think of income redistribution as an ex post policy. Another approach is to make ex ante
adjustments to level the playing field, and then step away and let the chips fall where they may.
When properly executed the ex ante approach is consistent with a meritocracy, and indeed creates
a better, deeper and more successful meritocracy than ignoring the differences in essential endowments.
Assume that there is an objective standard for merit, and a test that correctly ranks the subjects
in terms of that standard. (For the record, though basing merit on a testing regime is common
in many societies, I do not advocate it). Also assume that we can identify the factors that govern
success on the test that are within the control of those taking the test, such as how hard they
work, as well identify as the factors that are beyond their control. Given these two assumptions,
one scheme for the redistribution, suggested by John Roemer (and in this short post I cannot do
justice to his argument and stray from it in various respect), is first to define what constitutes
the endowment of important characteristics that are outside a person's control, and then assign
people to cohorts based on their levels of this endowment. For example, if the endowment is parents'
wealth and parents' education, we place people into cohorts based on the level of these two factors,
with the cohorts made narrow enough so that we can take all those in each cohort as being the
same with respect to the endowment.
The example he later uses is a tennis player, where a mediocre but highly trained and motivated
individual beats someone with vastly greater native ability. Bookstaber regards this as a poor societal
outcome and proposes ways of thinking about how much to invest in each person that are arguably fairer
but also better in terms of overall results.
What bothers me about this level of abstraction is that it ignores the salient element of modern
society: an extreme degree of role specialization in jobs. Emile Durkheim discussed this in his book
The Organization of Religious Life. He called pre-modern societies "mechanical" because everyone
was an interchangable part. Modern societies were "organic" because different people could do different
things, based on their inclinations and skills. The community is richer because we have opera singers
and sports players and other entertainers, as well as people who are good at their crafts or at running
or being in a specialized field.
So what exactly is talent? Educated people like to think of it as intelligence, and that intelligence
will be reflected in better educational attainment. But education in America has a lot of credentialing
and is mixed in terms of substance (there's a very strong argument to be made for the educational
system that Bonaparte implemented in France, which has sadly decayed beyond recognition, where it
made a systematic effort to find smart kids, no matter how poor their background, and track them
so that they had as much opportunity to get into the Grandes Ecoles as children who grew up with
highly educated parents. Bonaparte is arguably the father of meritocracy as a paramount organizational
principle, and that meant uniform delivery of educational "product" throughout French schools. The
same lesson would be taught to all fourth graders at 3:00 PM on a particular day all across the country).
And "intelligence" is not all of a muchness; it has numerous components that are not well understood
or analyzed (testing makes a stab at that on assessing verbal versus mathematical skills). And that's
before you get to the importance of social skills and emotional intelligence. James Heckman stresses
the importance of socialization, that students who get GEDs (they pass a test that demonstrates they
have mastered the material needed to get a high school degree) do markedly less well than students
who complete high school.
So we have a huge range of things that people who have some ability and a reasonable self-discipline
might aspire to (and that assumes young people know themselves well enough to gravitate to roles
in society that they actually can perform well at). So how can you think about "merit" for jobs as
different as computer programming versus writing ad copy versus selling heavy machinery versus being
an office manager in corporate cube land?
And achieving meritocratic outcomes within an organization is a hopeless task. As we wrote in
The Conference Board Review in 2007:
Consider the experience of OaklandA's general manager Billy Beane, the hero of Michael Lewis's
Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. The baseball industry has always measured players'
skill and achievements by a handful of well-known statistics, but in recent years researchers
have questioned the value of those traditional measures. To make the most of a limited budget,
Beane used the new principles to sign low-salaried players whom his analysis showed were dramatically
undervalued. The result: The team, with one of baseball's lowest payrolls, has placed first or
second in its division each of the last eight seasons…
Here, then, you have a business where the recruiting is unusually transparent, the basic rules
have remained unchanged for decades, competitive encounters are in full view, and the incentives
for success are high. This would seem to be the perfect environment for developing good decision
rules, yet the entire industry was largely wrong…
OK, so diversity programs may not serve the people they are designed to help. One of the reasons
is that these initiatives are assumed to undermine merit-based hiring and promotion. Indeed, as
[Stanford professor of neurobiology Ben] Barres points out, citing research, "When it comes to
bias, it seems that the desire to believe in a meritocracy is so powerful that until a person
has experienced sufficient career-harming bias themselves they simply do not believe it exists."
But the idea that an organization can be truly meritocratic is, alas, a fiction.
On a practical level, the best a company can hope for is that, taken as a whole, the people
it hires and promotes are "better" - as defined by the company-than the people it rejects. On
an individual level, the role of luck, combined with inherent shortcomings of per-
formance-appraisal systems, make it impossible to have confidence in the fairness and accuracy
of any particular staffing decision…
Other factors can thwart an organization's meritocratic efforts (many of these observations
derive from a 1992 paper by Patrick D. Larkey and Jonathan P. Caulkin, "All Above Average and
Other Unintended Consequences of Performance Appraisal Systems"). Many people, for instance, run
up against conflicts between individual and organizational interests. Implicitly, any employee's
job is to serve his boss, when his check is actually being cut by the company. If the employee
views his role as being different than his boss sees it, the boss's view prevails, whether
or not it is correct. In an extreme case, if the boss wants the employee to run personal
errands, and the employee refuses, he runs the risk of getting a negative review.
There's the Peter Principle conundrum that the skill requirements at one level may
bear little relationship to the demands of the next. You've heard the old chestnut, "Promote your
best salesman, and you lose a good salesman and gain a lousy manager." But this situation puts
bosses in a real bind. If you promote the person who is best in a department, his skills may fall
woefully short of the requirements of his new role. But if you promote the person you deem best
suited for that job, and not the top performer at his current role, you will demoralize his former
peers, create resentment against him (undermining his authority and effectiveness), and
raise questions about your judgment.
And then there are difficulties in ranking employees across organizational units. Even though
organizations want consistent ratings firmwide, it's a practical impossibility. There are considerable
barriers to a manager giving his staff member honest and useful feedback that lead to inflated
ratings. They have an ongoing relationship; and thus both sides do not want the review process
to create friction. Yet most employees have an inflated view of their achievements, which predisposes
them to doubt, perhaps even resent, a truthful appraisal. And since the assessment of a job of
any complexity is largely subjective, it's difficult forthe boss to defend a rating that is at
odds with the employee's self-assessment. In addition, managers consider themselves at least partly
responsible for their subordinate's performance. Thus a low rating reflects badly on them.
The consequences are profound. It means that the typical defense against the
failure to achieve diversity, that the company was in fact hiring and promoting based on achievement,
is hollow. These systems not only are subjective (inherent to most ratings) but also often lead
to capricious, even unfair results.
And there is evidence that subjective processes set a higher bar for minorities
and women. For example, a 1997 Nature paper by Christine Wenneras and Agnes
Wold, "Nepotism and Gender Bias in Peer-Review," determined that women seeking research grants
need to be 2.5 times more productive than men to receive the same competence score. In 1999, MIT
published the results of a five-year, data-driven study that found that female faculty members
in its School of Science experienced pervasive discrimination, which operated through "a pattern
of powerful but unrecognized assumptions and attitudes that work systematically against female
faculty even in the light of obvious good will."
So here you have the worst of all pos sible worlds. You want to achieve diversity, if for no
other reason than to forestall lawsuits and present a better face to your customers. Yet you have
long believed the main reason is that you haven't been able to find enough "talented" members
of the various groups to fill out your managerial ranks. But your performance-appraisal system
is subjective and probably unreliable, and the complex nature of organizations means that who
rises is largely arbitrary, and it is likely that "out"
groups are subject to higher performance standards. All this to say that women and minorities'
frustration at their failure to achieve reasonable representation may well be completely justified.
Your organization may be guilty as charged.
One of the revealing things about this now-seven-year-old article how the big concern then about
unfairness in hiring and promotion related to race and gender discrimination. It's astonishing how
the top income strata have so visibly pulled away in the wake of the crisis that economic mobility
is now seen as at least as big a barrier to opportunity.
So while it makes sense for all sorts of reasons to aspire to meritocracy, the fact that it can't
even remotely be achieved even when people of good will make genuine efforts means that
what Bookstaber called ex post solutions are critical. In other words, tax the rich. They don't deserve
it.
David Woodruff
October 26, 2014 at 4:13 am
These are excellent points about the difficulties of meritocracy inside organisations. But
I think there's a deeper problem, too. What Billy Beane tried to do was measure contribution to
winning baseball games, and used this to figure out how much players should get paid. But what
theoretically needs to be measured in an economic context to be meritocratic is marginal productivity
in terms of individuals' contribution to making money. Therefore, the measure of merit depends
on the price system. But if this is to be morally meaningful the price system itself has to be
morally meaningful. And it's not! The money the "best salesman" makes for a luxury car dealership
depends fundamentally on the availability of well-heeled customers; even in ideal remuneration
system within the dealership doesn't address the fact that it's rewarding success in an economy
based on incomes that derive from bargaining power, not on anything recognisable as merit.
So I think the drive for meritocracy is harmful not only because it distracts from ex ante
taxation, but also distracts from all the unreasonable ways bargaining power structures earning
opportunities.
...so often, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The robots, like the
rabble, must be kept in their place. But there are yet other worries hidden in
the regime of leisure gained by offloading tasks to the robo-serfs, and they are
even more troubling.
If you asked the bed-making-hating young man, I'm sure he would tell you that
anything is preferable to performing the chore, up to and including the great adolescent
activity of doing nothing. A recent Bruno Mars song in praise of laziness sketches
how the height of happiness is reached by, among other nonactivities, staring at
the fan and chilling on a couch in a Snuggie. (Yes, there is also some sex involved
later.) This may sound like bliss when you're resenting obligations or tired of
your job, but its pleasures rapidly pale. You don't have to be a idle-hands-are-devil's-work
Puritan-or even my own mother, who made us clean the entire house every Saturday
morning so we could not watch cartoons on TV-to realize that too much nothing can
be bad for you.
We have always sensed that free time, time not dedicated to a specific purpose,
is dangerous because it implicitly raises the question of what to do with it, and
that in turn opens the door to the greatest of life mysteries: why we do anything
at all. Thorstein Veblen was right to see, in The Theory of the Leisure Class,
not only that leisure time offered the perfect status demonstration of not having
to work, that ultimate nonmaterial luxury good in a world filled with things, but
also that, in thus joining leisure to conspicuous consumption of other luxuries,
a person with free time and money could endlessly trapeze above the yawning abyss
of existential reflection. With the alchemy of competitive social position governing
one's leisure, there is no need ever to look beyond the art collection, the fashion
parade, the ostentatious sitting about in luxe cafes and restaurants, no need to
confront one's mortality or the fleeting banality of one's experience thereof.
Even if many of us today would cry foul at being considered a leisure class
in Veblen's sense, there is still a pervasive energy of avoidance in our so-called
leisure activities. For the most part, these are carved out of an otherwise work-dominated
life, and increasingly there is a more permeable boundary between the two parts.
One no longer lives for the weekend, since YouTube videos can be screened in spare
moments at the office, and memos can be written on smartphones while watching a
basketball game on TV over the weekend. What the French call la perruque-the
soft pilfering of paid work time to perform one's own private tasks-is now the
norm in almost every workplace.
Stories about the lost productivity associated with this form of work-avoidance
come and go without securing any real traction on the governing spiritof the work world. The reason is simple. Despite the prevalence of YouTubing
and Facebooking while at work-also Pinterest-updating and Buzzfeed-sharing-bosses
remain largely unconcerned; they know that the comprehensive presence of tasks
and deadlines in all corners of life easily balances off any moments spent updating
Facebook while at a desk. In fact, the whole idea of the slacker and of slacking
smacks of pre-Great Recession luxury, when avoiding work or settling for nothing
jobs in order to spend more time thinking up good chord progressions or T-shirt
slogans was a lifestyle choice.
The irony of the slacker is that he or she is still dominated by work, as precisely
that activity which must be avoided, and so only serves to reinforce the dominant
values of the economy. Nowadays slacking is a mostly untenable option anyway, since
even the crap jobs-grinding beans or demonstrating game-console features-are being
snapped up by highly motivated people with good degrees and lots of extracurricular
credits on their résumés. Too bad for them; but even worse for today's would-be
slackers, who are iced out of the niche occupations that a half-generation earlier
supported the artistic ambitions of the mildly resistant.
It is still worth distinguishing between the slacker, of any description, and
the idler. Slacking lacks a commitment to an alternative scale of value. By contrast,
the genius of the genuine idler, whether as described by Diogenes or Jerome K.
Jerome, is that he or she is not interested in work at all, but instead devoted
to something else. What that something else involves is actually less important
than the structural defection from the values of working. In other words, idling
might involve lots of activity, even what appears to be effort; but the essential
difference is that the idler does whatever he or she does in a spirit of infinite
and cheerful uselessness that is found in all forms of play.
Idling at once poses a challenge to the reductive, utilitarian norms that otherwise
govern too much of human activity and provides an answer-or at least the beginning
of one-to the question of life's true purpose. It is not too much to suggest that
being idle, in the sense of enjoying one's open-ended time without thought of any
specific purpose or end, is the highest form of human existence. This is, to use
Aristotelian language, the part of ourselves that is closest to the divine, and
thus offers a glimpse of immortality. To be sure, from this Olympian vantage we
may spy new purposes and projects to pursue in our more workaday lives; but the
value ofthese projects, and the higher value from which these
are judged, can be felt only when we slip the bonds of use.
Naturally something so essential to life can be easy to describe and yet surpassingly
difficult to achieve. To take just the example most proximate to our current shared
consciousness-I mean the experience you are having reading these words-I can tell
you that I am writing them, on a deadline, while taking a train trip to deliver
a keynote lecture. The trip was arranged months ago, with time carved out of my
teaching schedule and the usual grid of meetings with students, colleagues, committees,
and administrators that marks the week of any moderately busy university professor.
I say nothing of the other obligations, social and cultural, the reading I need
to do for next week's seminars, the papers that must be graded, and so on.
Believe me, I am well aware of, and feel blessed by, the fact that my job is
itself arguably an enjoyable and rewarding form of idling. I also know how lucky
I am to have luxuries such as taking a train journey in the first place-though
I confess that the train was chosen in part because it creates more productive
time than traveling by the ostensibly more efficient air route. (I just checked
my e-mail again, using the train's Wi-Fi connection.)
This is not a complaint; it is, rather, a confession of the difficulties lurking
in all forms of work, even the most enjoyable ones. In fact, the more freely chosen
a work obligation, the harder it is to perceive that it might be an enemy of more
divine play: looking out the window at the sublime expanse of Lake Ontario, reading
Evelyn Waugh, composing a sonnet. The train is going very fast now, and my little
keyboard is jerking around, reflecting my mental agitation on this point. I have
to do a lot of backspacing. And no, I have no actual talent for sonnets.
At this point, we return with renewed urgency to
the political aspect of the question of leisure and work. Everyone from Plato and
Thomas More to H.G. Wells and Barack Obama has given thought to the question of
the fair distribution of labor and fun within a society. This comes with an immediate
risk: Too often, the "realist" rap against any such scheme of imagined distributive
justice, which might easily entail state intervention concerning who does what
and who gets what, is that the predicted results depend on altered human nature,
are excessively costly, or are otherwise unworkable. The deadly charge of utopianism
always lies ready to hand.
In a much-quoted passage, Marx paints an endearingly bucolic picture of life
in a classless world: "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere
of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates
the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today
and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle
in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming
a hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic." Charles Fourier was even more effusive,
describing a system of self-organizing phalansteries, or cells, where anarchist
collectives would live in peace, engage in singing contests-the ideal-society version
of band camp-and eventually turn the oceans to lemonade.
Veblen, after his fashion a sharp critic of capitalism but always more cynical
than the socialist dreamers, demonstrated how minute divisions of leisure time
could be used to demonstrate social superiority, no matter what the form or principle
of social organization; but he was no more able than Marx to see how ingenious
capitalist market forces could be in adapting to changing political environments.
For instance, neither of them sensed what we now know all too well, namely that
democratizing access to leisure would not change the essential problems of distributive
justice. Being freed from drudgery only so that one may shop or be entertained
by movies and sports, especially if this merely perpetuates the larger cycles of
production and consumption, is hardly liberation. In fact, "leisure time" becomes
here a version of the company store, where your hard-won scrip is forcibly swapped
for the very things you are working to make.
Worse, on this model of leisure-as-consumption, the game immediately gets competitive,
if not zero-sum. And this is not just a matter of the general sociological argument
that says humans will always find ways to outdo each other when it comes to what
they buy, wear, drive, or listen to. This argument is certainly valid; indeed,
our basic primate need for position within hierarchies means that such competition
literally ceases only in death. These points are illustrated with great acumen
by Pierre Bourdieu, whose monumental study Distinction is the natural
successor to The Theory of the Leisure Class. No, the issue can really
only be broached using old-fashioned Marxist concepts such as surplus value and
commodity fetishism.
It was the Situationist thinker Guy Debord who made the key move in this quarter.
In his 1967 book, Society of the Spectacle, he posited the notion of temporal
surplus value. Just as in classic Marxist surplus value, which is appropriated
by owners from alienated workers who produce more than they consume, then converted
into profit which is siphoned off into the owners' pockets, temporal surplus value
is enjoyed by the dominant class in the form of sumptuous feast days, tournaments,
adventure, and war. Likewise, just as ordinary surplus value is eventually consumed
by workers in the form of commodities which they acquire with accumulated purchasing
power, so temporal surplus value is distributed in the form of leisure time that
must be filled with the experiences supplied by the culture industry.
Like other critics of the same bent-Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas-Debord calls
these experiences "banal," spectacles that meet the "pseudo-needs" which they at
the same time create, in a cycle not unlike addiction. Such denunciations of consumption
are a common refrain in the school of thought that my graduate students like to
call Cranky Continental Cultural Conservatism, or C4; but there is nevertheless
some enduring relevance to the analysis. Debord's notion of the spectacle isn't
really about what is showing on the screens of the multiplex or being downloaded
on the computers of the nation; indeed, there is actually nothing to rule out the
possibility of playful, even critical artifacts appearing in those places-after
all, where else? Spectacle is, rather, a matter of social relations, just as the
commodity in general is, which need to be addressed precisely by those who are
subject to them, which is everyone. "The spectacle is not a collection of images,
but a social relation among people, mediated by images," Debord says. And: "The
spectacle is the other side of money: It is the general abstract equivalent of
all commodities."
We are no longer owners and workers, in short;
we are, instead, voracious and mostly quite happy producers and consumers of images.
Nowadays, the images are mostly of ourselves, circulated in an apparently endless
frenzy of narcissistic exhibitionism and equally narcissistic voyeurism: my looking
at your online images and personal details, consuming them, is somehow still about
me. Debord was prescient about the role that technology would play in this general
social movement. "Just when the mass of commodities slides toward puerility, the
puerile itself becomes a special commodity; this is epitomized by the gadget. ...
Reified man advertises the proof of his intimacy with the commodity. The fetishism
of commodities reaches moments of fervent exaltation similar to the ecstasies of
the convulsions and miracles of the old religious fetishism. The only use which
remains here is the fundamental use of submission."
It strikes me that this passage, with the possible exception of the last sentence,
could have been plausibly recited by Steve Jobs at an Apple product unveiling.
For Debord, the gadget, like the commodity more generally, is not a thing; it is
a relation. As with all the technologies associated with the spectacle, it closes
down human possibility under the guise of expanding it; it makes us less able to
form real connections, to go off the grid of produced and consumed leisure time,
and to find the drifting, endlessly recombining idler that might still lie within
us. There is no salvation from the baseline responsibility of being here in
the first place to be found in machines. In part, this is a simple matter
of economics in the age of automation. "The technical equipment which objectively
eliminates labor must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity," Debord notes.
"If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of
automation, ... then new jobs have to be created. Services, the tertiary sector,
swell the ranks of the army of distribution." This inescapable fact explains, at
a stroke, the imperative logic of growth in the economy, the bizarre fetishizing
of GDP as a measure of national health.
More profoundly, though, is a point that returns us to the original vision of
a populace altogether freed from work by robots. To use a good example of critical
consciousness emerging from within the production cycles of the culture industry,
consider the Axiom, the passenger spaceship that figures in the 2008 animated
film WALL-E. Here, robot labor has proved so successful, and so nonthreatening,
that the human masters have been freed to indulge in nonstop indulgence of their
desires. As a result, they have over generations grown morbidly obese, addicted
to soft drinks and video games, their bones liquefied in the ship's microgravity
conditions. They exist, but they cannot be said to live.
The gravest danger of offloading work is not a robot uprising but a human downgrading.
Work hones skills, challenges cognition, and, at its best, serves noble ends. It
also makes the experience of genuine idling, in contrast to frenzied leisure time,
even more valuable. Here, with only our own ends and desires to contemplate-what
shall we do with this free time?-we come face to face with life's ultimate question.
To ask what is worth doing when nobody is telling us what to do, to wonder about
how to spend our time, is to ask why are we here in the first place. Like so many
of the standard philosophical questions, these ones butt up, however playfully,
against the threshold of mortality.
And here, at the limit of life that idling alone brings into view in a nonthreatening
way, we find another kind of nested logic. Call it the two-step law of life. Rule
No. 1 is tomorrow we die; and Rule No. 2 is nobody, not even the most helpful robot,
can change Rule No. 1. Enjoy!
Mark Kingwell is a professor of philosophy at the University
of Toronto. His most recent book is Unruly Voices: Essays on Democracy, Civility,
and the Human Imagination (Biblioasis, 2012).
In The Problem with Work, Kathi Weeks boldly challenges the presupposition that work, or
waged labor, is inherently a social and political good. While progressive political movements, including
the Marxist and feminist movements, have fought for equal pay, better work conditions, and the recognition
of unpaid work as a valued form of labor, even they have tended to accept work as a naturalized or
inevitable activity.
Weeks argues that in taking work as a given, we have "depoliticized" it, or removed it from the
realm of political critique. Employment is now largely privatized, and work-based activism in the
United States has atrophied. We have accepted waged work as the primary mechanism for income distribution,
as an ethical obligation, and as a means of defining ourselves and others as social and political
subjects.
Taking up Marxist and feminist critiques, Weeks proposes a postwork society that would allow people
to be productive and creative rather than relentlessly bound to the employment relation. Work, she
contends, is a legitimate, even crucial, subject for political theory.
Way too simplistic. People are social animals, and organizations are our herd. It's tough to be
outside the herd. But if the current workplace is a hell it is your duty to survive and espcape.
Creating a war chest early to survive possibly long (a year or more) period of unemployment is a must.
And if frugality is the price, so be it.
Believe it or not, I have the soul of a lazy person. I have enjoyed time off from 6 weeks to a
year. I've enjoyed freedom in my work, especially now. So I totally understand the joy of Not
Working.
Zelinski's book has many things going for it. For example:
(a) Too many of us are workaholics.
(b) We need structure, purpose and a sense of community, with or without a job.
(c) Work smart, not hard ("peak performance").
(d) The checklist on page 54 can be a wake-up call.
(e) We can gain several hours a week if we give up television.
But as a career consultant I am concerned about the book's core advice. Page 55:
"The first day your job does not nourish and enthuse you is the day you should consider leaving.
Indeed, I advise you to quit." --[That's simply stupid, ridiculous
advice, that discredit the author -- NNB]
Pretty strong stuff! In my experience, few jobs provide daily nourishment and enthusiasm every
day or even every week. I would say, "If you've outgrown your job, begin a search for alternatives.
Don't do anything until you have a plan."
People do miss their jobs - even jobs they hated. I have never
seen statistics, but my experience suggests at least 50% of those who quit without another job
regretted the decision. One discussion list posted a note from a 40-something woman
who had chosen enjoyable, low-paying jobs in the personal growth field. Now she was ready to move
on, with no nest egg to fund a career transition.
Job dissatisfaction actually can be a misleading signal. Many people
who seek a career change actually need to relocate geographically or work on relationships.
My biggest criticism of the book is the potentially misleading presentation of information.
For example, the author mentions "a research study conducted in 2001 by Florida's Nova Southeastern
University" which found that over 38% of stockbrokers making $300,000 - $1,000,000 suffered from
"subclinical depression" while 28% reported "clinical depression." (Overlap? Additional? We're
not told.)
Most studies are conducted by individual researchers, not universities or even departments.
The author does not cite his source or indicate whether this study was actually published in a
reputable peer-reviewed journal.
How was this sample of brokers chosen? What methods were used to assess "subclinical depression"
or "clinical depression?" Was the depression long-term or situational? Was this study carried
out in 2001 before or after 9/11? Where's the cause and effect: does the field attract individuals
with a propensity to depression?
Other studies are mentioned but not cited or described in detail. For the Schnore study of
retirees, I'd want to know how their satisfaction was reported and tested.
Additionally, throughout the book, Zelinski presents letters from readers. He seems to suggest
that, "If these folks can do it, you can too."
But nearly all his examples come from people who took only the very first step: quitting or
deciding to retire. On page 96, Zelinski writes, "Perhaps you will [say]...married people can't
possibly quit their jobs like Ian did. Then go back to page 57 and read the letter [from a married
man with 2 kids who quit his job]...Case closed!"
Unfortunately, the letter on page 57 was written by someone who had just marched in to his
boss and quit. We don't know what happened afterward. Case not closed, in my opinion!
We do get a few examples of success: a professional who became a music busker in Toronto, someone
who moved into a friend's trailer to live on $6000 a year, someone who travels cheaply, and several
people who saved a stash of cash and now live comfortably from investments or a spouse's salary.
Many readers (and most of my clients) will not relate to those examples.
We should also realize Zelinski writes from Canada, a country with
national health care. It's not perfect, but it does open up career options. Those happily unemployed
are subsidized by taxes from those who face a 50% tax bracket at surprisingly low salary levels.
I also believe that not everyone will enjoy a life of hobbies and volunteer work. Working for
money gives you an edge, changing your thoughts, habits and conversations. Zelinski himself is
neither unemployed nor retired: he is a full-time writer. His four-hour-a-day schedule is actually
quite typical of professional authors of books. I once heard best-selling mystery author Jon Kellerman
speak about writing 3 pages a day. Zelinski aims for four.
Bottom Line: Joy of Not Working is worth skimming to experience a philosophy that can be adapted
to many lives. Unfortunately, the adaptation will be up to you.
"The Joy of Not Working" is a welcome antidote to the workaholic mentality. A former engineer,
Mr. Zelinski dropped out of the corporate rat race in favor of "The Life of Riley." He does what
he loves (consulting, speaking, and writing) to make a living [ I
wish we all can do it and have a bread on the table -- NNB], and indulges in leisure
the rest of the time. That doesn't mean he loafs around all day watching TV or playing video games.
He discourages such empty distractions in favor of well-rounded activities like learning another
language and volunteering at a homeless shelter.
Mr. Zelinski makes an excellent case for living
a full life free of regret. [Oh, yes, how we never though about it;
this way we peobably would never marry and have children --NNB] I liked his positive
attitude and constant motivation towards discovering and embracing my passions. His examples of
persons who left a dreary job in favor of pursuing their dream occupation might be just the prodding
some folks need to make their own leap (a similar book had that effect on me, and earned my eternal
gratitude). Overall, the book's lighthearted tone and numerous applicable quotes were uplifting,
and every chapter brightened up a break or lunchtime at work (although displaying a book with
this title on your desk might upset a Bill Lumbergh-type manager). My favorite part was his short section on becoming an author. Every aspiring or discouraged
writer should keep it handy as a pick-me-up.
However, the Life of Riley is a subjective thing, and finding your version of it might take
some time and testing. Yes, it would be ideal to immediately discover and make a living in one's
passion twenty hours a week. However, it may take awhile to actually discern your calling and
develop it into a viable occupation. Until then, having a decent job
that provides time and funds for investigating potential passions off-hours doesn't suck.
Indeed, that place in life can serve as a transitional period to test the waters while preparing
for the risk of a deeper plunge. But if the thought of showing up
to work makes you want to take a hostage, then it's time to jump ship right now.
From experience, I can second Mr Zelinski's claim that it's worth it in the long run.
Unfortunately, anyone who's not Western and single might find the Life of Riley difficult to
achieve. I'm an American singleton, so I have the luxury of finding myself without having to worry
about supporting a family, where my next meal is coming from, or if another car bomb will explode
in my neighborhood this month. I doubt that a minimum-wage earner with a spouse and two young
kids to feed or a woman who lives in Iraq would be able to imitate Mr Zelinki's lifestyle. Perhaps
in those situations the Life of Riley will need to be redefined.
At any rate, "The Joy of Not Working" is a great read that provides a much-needed reality check
for the average 9-to-5 person. FYI: I've checked out a couple of Mr. Zelinski's other books, and
there's some repetition between them. For example, this one and "How to Retire Happy, Wild, and
Free" are different in focus, but often similar in content. Keep that in mind before making your
purchase sight unseen.
The following is a review I did years ago of the first edition of this book. There are later editions
that are not out of print, so the book is still very much in print and I still highly recommend
it. It think Zelinski is the best there is when it comes to writing about retirement in a positive,
helpful light. George Fulmore.
As an instructor in adult education on the subject of retirement,
I have looked for books on the subject that cover the major areas of retirement in a positive
vein. I think The Joy of Not Working is an absolute classic. I use it as the basis of my class,
and I get nothing but positive feedback from those who buy it and read it. As a start, it is clear
that retirement is not for everyone. Many people will hate it or not even consider it for various
reasons. This book is not really meant for them. It is for the rest of us who are looking for
reinforcement and encouragement in making the retirement decision. The author helps us through
any thoughts of feeling guilty or fearing bordom in retirement. Then, he is off on a great section
that provides very practical ways of filling our increased leisure time. His Leisure Tree chart
is worth the price of admission alone, and this is followed by pages of detailed activities in
case one has not come up with enough on his or her own. Additionally, there are sensible suggestions
on finances, happiness and all kinds of other things that relate to getting on with the joy of
retirement and leaving the workplace behind. I highly recommend The Joy of Not Working as THE
retirement primer for those who want a positive outlook on life and one's future in a world that
does not evolve around work. As I said in the begining, such a life will not appeal to all. But
to those of us to which it does, this book will be prized on our bookshelf. Bravo Ernie Zelinski.
I truly believe this book is a classic that will wear well with readers for decades to come.
"He tells us that the retirement is another part of our lives, and that
we should dedicate it to discovering creativity within ourselves and enjoying it."
A Great Argument For Leading a Balanced Life, August 2, 2010
In today's world of workaholics, greed, and materialism, Mr. Zelinski offers a fresh voice
of moderation and living life.
Mr. Zelinski gives case examples of many people who have eschewed a lifetime of corporate servitude,
and have chosen the road less traveled. Some people have learned to live on less money. Others
retire early to pursue their dreams before the onset old age. The book is a compendium of people
choosing to ignore the Pied Piper of Capitalism, and have created their own trail of life.
The road to a life of fulfillment has few signposts, and is difficult for even those of intelligence
and independence. Knowing that others strive for independence, and the efforts they needed to
achieve their goals has given me new ideas for my own life.
Mr. Zelinski, thanks for your breath of fresh air.
C. Wagner "cecilkunkle" (On the banks of the Wabash far away)
A cornucopia of anecdotes and quotations.
That gets a bit old after the first hundred pages. However, the cartoons, reminiscent of Jim
Unger's "Herman", are somewhat entertaining. The cartoons are apparently drawn by the author,
since no credits are given.
So, hey, I'm gonna retire, write a book about how being employed is not peachy and you can
buy the multiple variations, systems and attend my seminars. Why don't we all retire now and sell
our books about not working? Heck! Your job is probably being outsourced anyhow. We have the makings
of a virtual perpetual motion machine. But, to cut to the chase, turn to page 161 for the 7 essentials
of a happy retirement. Health and cash flow are the biggies. Page 161 pays for reading all the
quotes and anecdotes. I suggest you don't wait until you retire to write the book, draw cartoons,
or create art. These activities will make your life more pleasant, if you work or not! The author
is quite right that you will not get this wisdom from a financial advisor. This book is not intellectual
groundbreaking, but the reader should leave realizing that retirement is more than collecting
a check the first of the month.
wannabe writer (Longmeadow, MA)
The most helpful book I ever read, November 3, 2009
I am retiring in a few months, and bought this book to steer me through the shoals of a dramatically
changing life situation. First of all, the author is brilliant. No I am not related to him, and
don't even live in the same country. I normally can't pay attention to anything but crappy novels,
despite my Ivy League education. By interspersing his text with hilarious quotes from famous people,
he completely held my interest. Some of the quotes were so amazing that I question whether he
made them up himself, and attributed them to people long-dead who couldn't dispute their origin.
I agreed with what he says almost totally, except that he doesn't think housework qualifies as
real exercise. He obviously has never experienced power-mopping. There is so much information
in this book, that I'll be researching the links for months. The book is actually not about retirement
at all, but about how to be happy, wild and free no matter your circumstance. He just sneaks in
the retirement bit to lure unsuspecting customers such as myself into reading what they should
have been reading about all
Sam Beckford
I originally found this book while on vacaton in Maui. I'm an entrepreneur/business coach/
semi-retired 41 year old guy.
I teach business owners how to work less and make more, and I lead by example working an average
of 15-20 hours per week. After reading this book I bought 100 copies, one for each of my coaching
clients and a few for friends.
This book has an excellent combination of philosophy and practical strategies. I was familiar
with the author because of one of his other books which I read over 10 years ago "The Joy of Not
Working". That book helped me form a strong philosophy that has allowed me to live more and work
less. How to Retire Happy, Wild and Free is a must read. If you are actually reading this review,
that means you are thinking about buying the book. Just order it! The longer you wait to read
it, the less time you will have in your life to reap the benefits of the ideas it will give you.
Lucasta (Towson MD)
Pep talk for the clueless, June 6, 2011
This book doesn't offer much in the way of nuts-and-bolts financial advice, other than to suggest
(as others have) that you don't need piles of money to find happiness in retirement. Instead it
focuses on how to craft a meaningful life, as opposed to vegetating in front of the TV for the
next 20 or 30 years. Many bits, e.g., the value of friendships and the importance of diet and
exercise, seem painfully obvious, though others may prove helpful. If retirement is drawing nigh
and you're fretting about how to fill all those empty hours,the author provides an exhaustive
pep talk. For the more resourceful and imaginative reader, it's heavy going.
PatNC
Almost every book on retirement seems to focus almost exclusively on the monetary aspects
of retirement, and completely neglects one of the most important questions that people need to
consider -- i.e., what do I want my life to look like after I stop
working? This book fills that niche, covering topics such as social interaction,
creating structure in your day, lifelong learning, travel, and health.
Zelinski's main proposition is that without planning and creating
structure, people are at risk of spending their retirement years sitting in front of the television;
however, with planning and creativity, retirement can be the most rewarding time
of life. I especially liked Zelinski's "Get-A-Life Tree," which challenges readers to think about
what they enjoy doing now, what they have enjoyed doing in the past and what they have thought
of doing in order to give them ideas on what might be rewarding for them in retirement.
One important caveat -- although Zelinski does briefly cover the
financial aspect of retirement, I found his attitude toward finances to be cavalier to say the
least. His basic premise is that you should retire as soon as possible and if it turns out that
you cannot afford to get by working part-time or less, just go out and work full-time for awhile.
I think in today's economy, such an approach is reckless. Therefore, I would NOT recommend this
book for people looking for guidance on financial planning for retirement. However, if you are
looking for some thought-provoking ideas on what to do with your retirement years, this book will
get you thinking.
How I got this book is a story by itself. I was vacationing in Belgrade, Serbia, and this book
was brought to my attention as the best thing since the slice of bread, as judged by the on-line
book version in which one could read only half of each page. I promised to buy the book upon my
return to USA and ship it. I did this, and I also purchased a copy of the book for myself.
This book is for anyone who is retired, but it is of equal value for somebody who has not retired
yet, which is my case.
The book is essentially a guide to living in which one is true to oneself, gets in touch with
one's creative potential and lives life to its fullest. Chasing money is not the way to do it.
The book is packed with practical advice, such as how to fight boredom, how to be grateful for
what one has, how to structure the free time, how to contribute to the welfare of others, how
to travel without luxury, you name it, it is there.
In a sharp contrast with depressing books which tell us how much money we need to save so that
we can safely linger in an old age home, where we would be engaged in the safe activity of watching
TV, Zelinski takes the bull of the old age by its horns. He tells
us that the retirement is another part of our lives, and that we should dedicate it to discovering
creativity within ourselves and enjoying it.
This is an extraordinary book. After I have read it (it took me one month, as I took copious
notes) for the first time in my professional life I do not feel guilty doing things that please
me deeply, and yet are not helping my career and are meaningless to anybody else. The point in
case: coloring mandalas.
Thank you Mr. Zelinski for opening our eyes to the art of living our lives in the mature phases
of our lives!
Tom K. (Carmel, IN United States)
Ernie Zelinski has a contagious positive spirit, ideally suited for a book emphasizing the
non-financial dimensions of successful retirement. This is a comprehensive guide to the many issues
and options for retirement planning and living.
The author stresses the need for a personal mission statement to shape choices and engagement.
He illustrates why this is necessary and shows how to create one. He shows that without a deeply
felt sense of direction, odds are high that retirement will be a failure. He covers the importance
of health, friends, structure, variety, self-expression, mental activity and experience, noting
that those who ignore these core human needs struggle with retirement.
This is a possibilities thinking book, promoting self-awareness, responsibility and self-actualization.
Each person needs to tailor their plans and activities to match their own dreams. Some activities
can meet many needs. Goals can be pursued through semi-retirement, volunteer work, extended travel
and education options.
The author provides many stories, quotes, sources, examples and checklists. Unfortunately,
he rambles at times and repeats points.
Mr. Zelinski effectively challenges the reader to assume control of his life and look past
the conventions of society. But, he overreaches in his criticisms
of corporations, work and achievement, oversimplifies the retirement timing decision as "just
do it" and underestimates the financial resources needed for requirement, asserting that an enlightened
individual can easily cut living expenses in half.
This book is a good complement to the many financially oriented retirement guides. The important
topics are covered, a strategic approach is outlined and practical advice is shared
With this book Ernie Zelinski is providing a valuable service to anybody even thinking about
retirement. The focus is mostly on the non-financial issues, which probably turn out to be even
more important than financial planning. I don't know of another book that approaches the topic
in quite the same way. My only criticism is that if there are twenty ways to say something it
doesn't mean you need to use all twenty to make your point. I read the first two chapters word-for-word,
but found myself doing a lot of scanning and skipping after that. If you have the patience to
sit down and read every word of this book, cover to cover, then you're a better man (or woman)
than me. One of the highlights was all the quotations: there's a relevant quote or cartoon on
almost every page, over two hundred of them. Researching and assembling all of those is quite
an achievement in itself. Read this book for sure; just be prepared to exercise a lot of patience
or do a lot of skimming.
Obrist is right, though: realtime is homogenized time and hence needs to be resisted. So sign
me up for posthastism, posthaste. "Delays are revolutions": that's a slogan I can march under. My
manifesto:
- Never respond to a text until at least 24 hours have passed.
- Wait four days or more before replying to an email.
- Tweet about things that happened a month ago.
- Stop your Facebook Timeline at the turn of the last century.
In his talk at Tate Modern last week, Tino Sehgal talked a lot about slowness, and how
it was a key aspect of the way he engages with the world in his work. As someone known for your hyper-productivity,
how do you relate to this idea of slowness?
I'm interested in resisting the homogenization of time: so it's a matter of making it faster and
slower. For art, slowness has always been very important. The experience of seeing art slows us down.
Actually, we have just founded a movement with Shumon Basar and Joseph Grima last week called posthastism,
where we go beyond haste. Joseph Grima was in Malta, and he had this sudden feeling of posthaste.
Shumon and I picked up on it and we had a trialogue, which went on for a week on Blackberry messenger.
Posthastism. [Reading from a sheet of paper hastily brought in by his research assistant] As Joseph
said: "Periphery is the new epicenter," "post-Fordism is still hastism because it's immaterial hastism,
which could lead now's posthastism." One more thing to quote is "delays are revolutions," which was
a good exhibition title.
The beginning of my whole journey was night trains. It's a slow way of travelling and now we are
working with Tino [Seghal] and Olafur [Eliasson] on solar airplanes. They fly at a hundred miles
an hour, so it would be a little bit like travelling on a night train. Travelling might get slower
again, if it's sustainable. All my shows have been conceived on night trains: the kitchen show, the
hotel show, the Robert Walser museum, "Cloaca Maxima" in the drainage museum. I would take a night
train and reflect on the conversations I've had with artists like Boetti or Fischli and Weiss and
arrive in the next city. Somehow that night train rhythm was an idea factory.
If you're unlikely to become a manager, the next best way to avoid
work is to become invisible. If people can't see you, they can't pester you with work
assignments.
As an office worker, don't expect to have any dignity. Perhaps the only way to stay sane is to
accept that you'll turn into something despicable. Don't fall for the office management propaganda
about integrity and professionalism. In the corporate workplace, self-respect is out of the question
– it exists only in the delusions of drones.
Start becoming invisible ... positioning your computer so you're hidden from your boss. You might
also want to build tall stacks of documents around your desk. The next step is to be invisible in
meetings....
To assuage your guilt, it helps to familiarize yourself with the Law of Office called
SNAFU, which states that no project is ever completed on schedule. Projects which appear to
finish on schedule are, by definition, not really complete. A corollary is that project managers
are living in a dreamworld. No amount of hard work on your part can overturn these laws, so why bother
straining yourself? Chronic under-productivity is as certain as gravity
– you should never feel ashamed of it.
Ambitious, careerist types won't appreciate this subversive humor, as it undermines their sense
of self-importance. Consider these folk as your enemies in the propaganda
war. They might be your colleagues, but you don't have to socialize with them. You
can always fake sociability. On occasions when you can't avoid your colleagues, join in the office
chit-chat.
If you have arrived at this page, you may well be asking "why?". In fact,
"Why does someone want to write about the disadvantages of hard work,
when we are all told incessantly how beneficial it is?"
into Google and got precisely zero hits. No-one on the entire web, it would seem, has written
this phrase. Why not? Clearly it is "culturally verboten".
I was motivated to ask this question of the search engine, as, after
many years of teaching in the University sector, I have met a significant number of people who I
consider have been significantly damaged as individuals by subscribing to the "hard work is necessary"
hypothesis.
So let us put the record straight here, and spell out some of the advantages of working just sufficiently
to satisfy the various criteria of emotional and spiritual need, the demands of the job, the necessity
of keeping body supplied with food clothing and shelter, and the social requirements of interacting
with others.
Case histories
Among the people I have observed who subscribe to the "hard work is good" hypothesis are several
University academics whose ability to think clearly, and administer effectively, are adversely
affected by their permanent state of tiredness. Often, these folk feel the need to intervene
when it is inappropriate. People like this generally are unhappy with the status quo, and feel that
any change or intervention is bound to be for the better.
Among the students I have met, there are significant numbers whose ability to learn and retain
information, let alone process it effectively, have been compromised by years of being forced to
acquire unnecessary skills and learn unnecessary facts; I maintain this has actually physically damaged
their brains, and that an enlightened court of law would award them damages against their educational
institutions. Often, this kind of mental overload seems to be a prerequisite for admission to the
course being taken.
At Berkeley (Uni Calif) in the 1960s I noticed that the ability of overworked students to express
themselves clearly in spoken English was severely impaired. This was confirmed in the early 1980s
when a telephone conversation with a Physics grad student in a Californian University had to be abandoned
as the person in question could not communicate fluently. It is also noticeable that overworked students
cannot sequence or recall simple facts like names, addresses, and telephone numbers with accuracy.
Neither can they spell accurately or proof read what they have written. They also try to "rote learn"
ineffectually, as they cannot repeat accurately what they have just seen, read, or heard.
Among the medics I have met, there are a significant number, likewise, who "do what they do, regardless"
- thus if you go to a physician you get dosed up with drugs; to a surgeon, you get cut open; in fact,
each specialist tries to fit your ailment into his own field of competence. This activity is unrelated
to the needs of the case.
Among the politicians I have known, the greatest damage to society is caused by those people who
regard themselves as the greatest "movers and shakers". Moreover, there is a class of commentator
that regards the activity of "moving and shaking" to be intrinsically beneficial, without regard
to the end effects.
Choice in the marketplace
Much of the excessive pressure to work harder, to produce more for less, and to drive staff harder
is justified by the mantra "choice for the consumer". It is a psychological observation that given
excessive choice, the majority of people have extreme difficulty in exercising it and arriving at
a rational purchasing decision. Supermarkets should note this. It is far easier to choose from a
limited range of goods than from acres of produce spread out among miles of shelving.
The same observation applies to the motivation of students on modular degree courses. Excessive
choice leads to a shallow educational experience. It is also somewhat demotivating for the student.
I am often asked to delimit my course materials so that the student knows what is not to be covered
in the exam tests.
Feedback regulation
There is a report at
www.discover.com
that the brain (specifically, the left pre-frontal cortex) undergoes structural changes on long exposure
(many years) to stress such as overwork. This makes the brain's owner more disposed to see the negative
side of events, rather than the positive. One can see a certain amount of self-regulation here, for
positive disposition in a person predisposes him/her to work harder. We can also identify the scientific
reasons for negative reactions to excessive perceived stress and the onset of depressive illness
caused directly by being subjected to a heavy workload.
Optimum range of workload
It is apparent that most people have a range of demand that they can tolerate, or even feel comfortably
happy with. Below the lower limit they feel discontented and underutilised, and above the upper limit
they seek to shed work and may even become bad-tempered. An attribute of people who rise to high
positions within their organisations is that they are very tolerant of a wide range of work demands;
they find occupations for themselves if lightly loaded, and they are benign under pressure, even
if it is unreasonable. For this reason, they are candidates for promotion.
Shared views
The tenor of this argument is shared by
Prince Charles
in a report in the Guardian newspaper on Tuesday 13th Sept 2005.
twitter: faking it is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
by (104583) on Thursday , @07:00PM (#5968702)
Faking it does not work. Most of these techniques are the pathetic kind of thing that only fools
the person playing the trick. Notice the dummy remote controling their windoze desktop got canned.
This also made me laugh:
"If you're a boss, and you send e-mails at all of hours of the night, the subtle message
you're sending employees is, 'I'm working, why aren't you,' " says Anne Warfield, a career coach
in Edina, Minn.
Poop. If I believe the email time was not caused by exchange choking all day on viruses, I conclude
that the boss does not have his shit together. These days everyone is just hanging on to their
job at companies and you are lucky if your company is at 60% capacity. The only reason to
work late is make work, usually the kind that's laid down to make life hell before firing a bunch
of people.
There is no substitute for real work and everyone knows the difference between it, slacking and
make work.
I'm not recomending that everyone "wipe the counter" whenever they are underutilized, but
cleaning the desk is not a bad idea. Everyone has some down time, and NYC desks are filthy.
When that five minute's worth of work is done, there are plenty of things to do with yourself besides
sit in a dinner for three hours. You might read trade publications, email your family, hit slashdot
and do other normal things. Sitting in a dinner for three hours, that's like punishment.
On a project deadline, they feel your timeline to build the servers can be cut down
from a 2 weeks to day, to make the project on time?
Engineering forces a product down your throat, best of the customer blah blah. And forget
to include an admin interface? Places the server 150 miles away, and puts it in a DMZ so you
cant remotely manage it.
Vendor builds a unix box, on the oldest version of an OS known to man, and wont run any
standard tools, and the only monitoring is a log file with "ERROR" in it.
Customer is down, on a new service that dropped form the sky into your lap... No support
tools, no access, and your Manager is asking why you are taking so long. Dont even think of
asking for documentation.
Your manager learns a new technology buzzword, and all the sudden, you have 10x more
paperwork, and nothing has changed.
The software you run crashs all the time, causing outages. The vendor blames you, and points
to internal documentation they wrote "last week".
Vendor A blames Vendor B for not following the SPEC, but your service is down, and neither
will help you get it back in service.
You call Tech support in the middle of the night to find out your contract number isnt
correct, doesnt matter you are the biggest customer and have super duper platnium support.
Call back tomorrow.
In all staff meeting, management tells the staff about new work methods, which happen to
just only affect you.
You ask a question to one manager, and 2 hours later, an All Employee email goes out about
the same subject, that everyone should have already known!
You accept a new project, no training, no tools, no documentation, and its now production.
Then they fire the Project Manager, Engineer and consultants the day after.
Marketing sells wizzbang new product, forgetting to see if its really possible.
I tell you, the reason Dilbert and BOFH are so popular, its almost like real life....
GoToMyPC.com? Aaargh! (Score:2, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15, @06:41PM (#5968548)
Didn't I see that crappy software in thousands of popup and banner ads? Isn't there a free, open-source
alternative called (Tight)VNC that is probably just as (in)secure?
No, it's not off topic. GoToMyPC.com
is mentioned in the article as a good way to remotely control your computer for "only $19.95 a
month".
I noticed that myself - who would pay $20 for a friggin glorified VNC system? If the dynamic-IP
adress is a problem, then just get a dynamic-IP redirection service like dynip.com - that's
$25 per year for a big, user friendly business.
Great, I can replicate their service for
1/10th the cost, and could set it up in five minutes flat. Don't even have to memorize an IP
address. Not to mention that with the IP redirection, you could also set up an FTP so you could
get your files locally.
Hell, I don't see why anyone should ever need to use such a service. With ICQ2Go, Webmail
service, and MSN I can log in to all my communications systems at any net cafe or handheld.
I can keep in touch just fine - I only VNC to my machine to use the compiler.
Someone modded this as a troll? - Get a clue! (Score:5, Interesting)
by Infonaut (96956) on Thursday May
15, @07:03PM (#5968719)
Zentec is dead on here. With all the bitching about moving IT jobs to India, now is not the
time to be joking about this stuff. Seriously, the guys in India, Russia, et. al. are working
their asses off for far less money than IT professionals make here.
Do you think they are spending their time wondering how to goof off?
Maybe the person who modded Zentec as a troll is a high school or college kid laughing at
how funny the story is, how clever you are, and how concerned all of us old fogies are about
what's happening in IT.
But when real life jumps up and bites you in the ass, it's not so funny. I know a lot of
people who are out of work right now and making very painful decisions about their future (i.e.
- do I stay in IT or become a shoe salesman so I can keep up with mortgage payments).
Secret to Delayed Email (Score:5, Informative)
by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Thursday
May 15, @06:46PM (#5968585)
Don't have it automagically send out on the tens or fives.
I liked to keep it on the odd
minutes.
1 am is nothing, the 3 or 4 in the morning message have that feeling of really busting your
ass.
I always liked Apple Remote Desktop for my control the machine from afar.
Hell I could sit at my Mac at home, remote in, turn on Virtual PC and admin the Novell Network.
Lots of technical people have the opposite problem - they're not working 6am-2:30pm,
they're working 11-9, and getting criticized for slacking by the
kinds of people who think arriving before 8am and leaving by 5:02pm is the way
to work hard and don't know or care how late you're working because they've stopped thinking
about work by 5:01pm.
Sometimes you get their attention about this by sending them email at 8pm, though it can
be more effective with some of them to leave voicemails (if your voicemail system gives timestamps,
which most seem to.)
This is especially a problem for programmer-types who need to get uninterrupted concentration,
and can't do that in the daytime because they have cubicles rather than offices.
I tend to check my email before going to sleep, and one of my coworkers in Boston often
gets started early in the morning - we've had email conversations at 2am on occasion.
Hardly Working at College would make just as good a gift for a recent college graduate as it would
for someone who is just starting, the tips in this book will be so familiar to anyone who recently
completed college as to give them unpleasant flashbacks (when they're not laughing hysterically.)
Basically a collection of ways to screw the school system, Hardly Working at College has everything
sneaky that you did to make yourself seem like a better student than you actually are.
Some of my favorites:
The best embarrassing illnesses to use when calling out sick
Getting a job at the library to avoid buying textbooks
How to get the easiest job in any group assignment
As the U of C increasingly tries to shed its image as the place "Where Fun Goes To Die," the admissions
pool consists more and more of students who can be counted on to get out of the library and into
frat parties. As such, there are a growing number of first-years who, for lack of a better word,
can be called slackers. These students are taking a bit of a risk in giving Chicago a shot. They
may know how to get the party started, but they've got to get past the Core to make sure they're
still around to keep it going.
Chris Morran, comic, author, and self-proclaimed "noted ne'er-do-work,"
tries to show them the way with his new work Hardly Working at College: The Overachieving Underperformer's
Guide to Graduating Without Cracking a Book. His satirical guide to higher education offers
practical advice on how to get as little out of school as you can while still managing to stay in.
Morran splits the student body into three types of scholars: overachievers, underperformers, and
the overachieving underperformers. While his discussions of the foibles of the dropout-bound underperformer
and the idealized overachieving underperformers will provide some smiles, it's the image of the overachiever
that provides the book with its heart. His description is a dead-on portrait of That Guy, down to
the suit and tie on the illustration. Morran goes on to ruthlessly mock these blazered study nerds
for the next 160 pages. This joyfully condescending attitude towards the suckers who actually show
up to class having done the reading, as contrasted with their craftier, party-hardy brethren, is
how the book gets you interested. The author brings substantial insight to the table, hoping that
putting these unspoken truths of student life in print will earn him some surprised laughs.
His hopes are realized, as page after page calls up fond memories of extensions finagled and papers
recycled. Morran knows the drill on how to survive an elite college education and avoid the psych
ward in the process, and it shines through brightly in Hardly Working. Mike Pisiak's illustrations
provide a major boost to the book in this respect, tying the text together with familiar images of
the sudden jump in attendance that all-or-nothing final exams classes receive during the final study
session.
The same insight that earns snickers with its solemn recounting of the pros and cons of sleeping
through early-morning classes also earns the book a spot on the required reading list for incoming
first-years. Why? Because Hardly Working actually contains some useful tips on how to succeed in
academia without really trying. Dedicated slackers will find themselves nodding sagely as they read
Morran's advice on lecture hall seating (close enough to be visible, but not so close that the prof
can tell you're not taking notes so much as checking your Facebook account) and escaping the consequences
of tardiness (straightforward humility, or the more daring good-natured ribbing). His tips on how
best to get a great recommendation are legitimately worth a review the next time you have an internship
or grad school application coming up. Time and time again, readers of Hardly Working will find themselves
either saying "Hey, that's me!" or "I'm totally trying that during finals!"
Some chapters are not quite up to that standard. At times, the readers will find themselves moved
to send the author suggestions of their own to replace some of his more nonsensical instructions.
In particular, Morran's tactics for borrowing someone's notes and ducking out from under the burden
of doing lab work stray from the realism that gives Hardly Working its bite. His discussion of how
to explain an absence from class is more recognizable, but will likely leave Chicago readers with
the firm impression that the University of Virginia, Morran's alma mater, is a far different place
from the home of the Maroons. The book also loses steam towards the end, as the final section on
post-graduate options lacks the "trust me, I've been there" charm of earlier chapters.
Despite these flaws, this one is worth a long, hard look. With tongue planted firmly in cheek,
Morran has crafted a chuckle-worthy addition to the library of "how-to" guidebooks college students
find foisted upon them by parents and high school counselors. Unlike some of the others, this one
might actually come down off the shelf once or twice a quarter. Whether it's just used to relieve
stress or to mindlessly survive the Life of the Mind is up to the reader.
October 19, 2005, Printed on December 23, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/27019/
Barbara Ehrenreich is one of those rare writers who is not only smart and unapologetically progressive,
but really funny. That's quite a feat considering the deadly serious subjects she takes on, including
the middle class, war, marriage, cancer, and corporations.
Like Alexis de Tocqueville, Ehrenreich seems most interested in the characters, mythologies and
systems that make the United States what it is. In hundreds of articles and a dozen books, she's
focused on how this country works, who it works for, and who is left behind.
In the bestseller Nickel and Dimed, she worked at a variety of low-wage jobs with the idea
of answering the question of how people in the working poor survive and make ends meet.
Her latest book, Bait and Switch, was inspired by a reader who asked,
"What about those of us in the middle class who do everything we're supposed to; what about
those of us go to college, work hard, get a job, and then find ourselves unemployed and unable
to pay the bills?"
Ehrenreich spoke with AlterNet about class, prevailing American mythologies, and why she's
through with going under cover.
Back in the spring, NPR did
a show
about a recent study showing that class mobility in the United States is basically nonexistent.
The single most indicative factor of a person's income is that person's parents' income.
Lower classes in Canada, Britain, Germany and France have a far easier time moving their way
up the social ladder than their American counterparts.
Yet, a New York Times study found that 80 percent of Americans believe it's still possible
to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Did your experience in Bait and Switch and Nickel
and Dimed give you any sense of why that belief still persists?
EHRENREICH: There is a tremendous American theme about positive thinking. We have a hard time
dealing with truly bad news and discouraging information. Throughout my experience trying to get
a white-collar job, I was encouraged to think positively. You are supposed to see your job loss
as some great break, your chance to move on to something bigger and better. The reality
is that 70 percent of people who lose their jobs and do get rehired, are rehired at a lower pay.
But to criticize the system, or to be negative is considered "un-American."
It was a similar attitude that drove me crazy when I was dealing with breast cancer. Despite
study after study showing there was no correlation, everyone kept telling me that my outcome would
be better if I had a better attitude.
What's so offensive about that insistence, whether in relation to illness or job loss, is the
implication that the victim is at fault. If you don't get better or you don't find a better job,
then there must be something wrong with your attitude. The government (or the doctor, or the employer)
doesn't have to take responsibility for providing for you, because if you aren't doing well, it's
your fault. And of course it's an outlook that's enormously satisfying for those on top, because
it implies they deserve to be there because of their winning attitudes.
It makes sense that people holding power would believe this, but why do you think others believe
it, despite their own experience?
The belief in a positive attitude is so ingrained in American thinking. You can see it in the
late 19th century, with the advent of Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science. In the '50s, it was
called the Power of Positive Thinking. In the '70s, it was called EST.
Now it's in all the business books I've read. It's crammed down people's throats in books like
Who Moved My Cheese.
One job-seeker I met, told me he'd "gotten over" all the negative feelings he had from his
firing. He'd absorbed all these feelings in the hopes that this would get him a better job!
What happens to that anger?
I don't know where it goes. Part of pop psychology is that you should acknowledge your feelings,
but there's no place for them in the workplace.
In The Mangaged Heart, Arlie Hochschild wrote about the bland mask that workers are
required to wear. Eventually, you get used to the affect and people lose the capacity to recognize
their own emotions.
Another American myth that falls apart in Bait and Switch is the idea that Americans
are so free-spirited, independent and rebellious. You write about how people who are laid off are
encouraged to pretend to be at work; to dress for work, even to have a friend or a partner act as
a boss.
Yes, you're supposed to structure your life as if you're working. Even though this could be
your chance to do something creative and fun. To seize hold of the fact that you have time to
do something different.
I finally realized why people seemed so passive; people feel their survival is at stake.
If you stood up at one of the "support meetings" for the white-collar unemployed and said, "This
is nonsense," you would be shunned. People might withhold a contact for you that might mean the
difference between having a job or not.
And yet the people in Nickel and Dimed, who were closer to real poverty than the people
in Bait and Switch, seemed to have more rebelliousness, more defiance.
That was my experience. It's of course not necessarily statistically true, just in the settings
I was in. But I did find that the blue-collar workers were more willing to express defiance, even
if only in small ways: making faces at the boss behind her back or making sarcastic remarks. In
blue-collar work, there is a larger gap between the worker and the manager. You aren't required
to be as socialized, just to obey.
In blue-collar jobs, they mostly just want to know if you are taking drugs or are a convicted
felon. But in the white-collar world, there's much more probing of your personality and
they want one specific personality: someone cheerful, upbeat and very social. You are required
to be a team player.
And yet you, and reviewers, seem to have more sympathy for the blue-collar workers who aren't
working so hard to get along with everyone.
In general, I think it's easier for liberal affluent people to be concerned about those who
are chronically poor. Harder to have compassion for the IT person down the street who may be heading
to the working poor. And by and large, I found the white-collar people more withdrawn and depressed.
Even if they had a job, they were terrified of being laid off. The white-collar person might be
only six months away from being in a blue-collar job, if they have a job at all. But part of being
in the middle-class is absorbing certain prejudices; white-collar workers may believe they are
smarter and more hard-working than those in blue-collar jobs and so this shouldn't happen to them.
Since I was able to get blue-collar jobs, I had more well-rounded experiences of the people
I worked with. I tried for over six months to get a white-collar job and couldn't get one. I didn't
have the right contacts, the right look or the right attitude. I think if I'd been able to land
a white-collar job I may have had more rounded experiences of the people I was working with and
perhaps their defiance would come out in subtle ways as well.
You seem surprised in the book by the white-collar emphasis on personality and networking.
You mention a woman who is brought in for a sit-down with the boss after she mentions in a work-retreat
questionnaire that "irony" is her favorite form of humor. How do you think this culture of positive
personality effects the work that is actually being done in white-collar jobs?
I'm not sure this emphasis is even best for the corporate world. Before going deeper into white-collar
job searching, I would have assumed the emphasis would be on the bottom line. It seems that corporations
would want good problem-solvers, even if they were eccentric and dressed funny.
The computer technology boom did change this somewhat. While it boomed, there was the sense
that it didn't matter how you dressed and how quirky your personality was, as long as you were
smart. While Silicon Valley boomed, I think this did have some effect on corporate culture. And
at Microsoft, Google and Amazon, and places like that I've seen that it still is that way.
But when the technology market settled down, general corporate culture withdrew back into conformity.
One woman I met during the research for this book was told at an interview, "We're not
looking for a 'smart' person right now."
In Thomas Friedman's The Earth is Flat he raises the alarm that Americans are falling
behind in science, technology, and business because of globalization. But I think there's a larger
problem with American productivity: corporations have gotten flabby. We have a flat business
culture where people are not challenged to think independently.
My experience researching Nickel and Dimed made me angrier, but I was also unsurprised
by what I found. I had worked some of those jobs before. Bait and Switch was more astounding.
I was surprised by how non-rational that work world was and the mystical belief in positive-thinking.
I had no idea, for example, how much evangelical Christianity has penetrated this world.
Instead of thinking about how powerful these companies are, which is what I expected, I came
out wondering how they get anything done!
You end Bait and Switch with some ideas for organizing unemployed white-collar workers.
Has there been any response to that?
I put out some ideas, such as national health care and increased unemployment benefits. But
one thing that struck me doing the research for the book was that there was no way for unemployed
or underemployed people to come together that wasn't an evangelical recruiting session or a money
scam.
As I go around talking to people on this book tour, I've been helping set up networks of local
underemployed and unemployed white-collar workers. People have really been excited about the simple
thing of being able to sit around and share stories with other people. People feel like their
job loss is their fault and just having conversations with others is breaking through the isolation
and getting them to think about change.
White-collar organizing has been pretty limited to health professionals, teachers, some professors.
It would be great if these meetings could change that.
What's next? Are you thinking of masquerading in the upper class?
You know, I wanted to, but doing the initial research, I came to the sad conclusion that it
would take a whole lot of plastic surgery for me to be able to pull it off. The rich just
don't look like the rest of us -- all the constant facials and pampering. Their skin is
so tight it shines. I don't think I'll be going through that transformation any time soon.
So instead, I'm looking forward to getting back to work on a history book that interests me,
a follow-up to Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War.
History doesn't necessarily sell well, but I love it and it's how I understand the world.
I learned something else at this job -- something besides the ability to keep a straight face
while discussing proactive prioritization of mission-critical objectives that will leverage end-to-end
supply chains to maximize profit potential in the e-marketplace. I learned that trying to look
busy and productive is much more difficult than actually doing work.
The reasoning here is this: If you're actually doing work, you can focus on it, even if you don't
like it. When your boss comes round demanding to know what you're up to, you can tell him, show him
on the monitor, provide actual progress reports, discuss problems and solutions, and so forth. It
may be tedious, depending on what you're doing, but it usually isn't very stressful.
On the other hand, if you have nothing to do, and can't find anything to do, you have to have
a prepared list of action items (translation: "things") to talk about when he saunters by your desk
and wants to see what you're doing, because for some reason, "nothing" just isn't an appropriate
response to the question "What are you working on?" in the corporate world. "Fuck all" and "jack
shit" are even less favorable, accurate as they might be.
To compile this list you have to invent plausible-sounding things that don't actually need to
be done, which nobody will be able to determine their level of completion, and that nobody really
cares about anyway. You have to invent explanations as to why these things need to be done. It's
also best if the things you're pretending to do are things your manager won't understand, or that
sound so technical or mind-numbingly boring that he won't ask for details. And you have to have have
enough of these fake workloads that you can answer the question several times a day without repeating
yourself too often over the course of a week. Conjuring up phantom work that fits all of this criteria
is a full-time job in and of itself.
Five per cent of UK employees spend up to a quarter of their working week chatting to friends
over IM programs such as MSN Messenger, AIM and
Yahoo, according to a survey by YouGov for security software maker Symantec.
About 23 per cent of UK employees have been exposed to, or knows someone who has been exposed
to, an instant messaging (IM) security risk while at work. Security breaches due to people sending
each other files and hyperlinks over instant messaging applications are on the rise and cannot be
dealt with by traditional methods.
Symantec has brought out IM Manager, which it claims is developed to deal with such threats. Sean
Doherty, head of sales and development at Symantec enterprise messaging, said security products such
as Symantec Norton Anti Virus is not enough to stop IM worms.
This is because they spread very fast, having an outbreak time of 20 minutes and anti-virus vendors
cannot respond quickly enough.
DOING NOTHING: A History of Loafers, Loungers, Slackers, and Bums in America
By Tom Lutz
Farar, Straus and Giroux
384 pp., $25
A look at those who would elevate sloth to an art form.
By Larry Sears
"Everyman is, or hopes to be, an idler." With these words of Samuel Johnson, Tom Lutz begins
his latest effort, Doing Nothing: A History of Loafers, Loungers, Slackers, and Bums in America.
This book is a fascinating - although at times also frustrating - analysis of both workers
and slackers throughout the past 250 years of Anglo-American history. It begins as a small family
story and then expands into a complex examination of the duality of work and leisure, including
commentary from a variety of writers and intellectuals.
When Cody, Tom Lutz's son, graduates from high school in 2001, he asks his father if he can
live with him while he plans his post-high school life. Remembering his own journey of self-discovery,
working at odd jobs, hitchhiking and "doing the period's allotment of drugs," Lutz, who teaches
English at the University of Iowa, eagerly welcomes his son.
Early on, he expects that the young man might explore his interest in music by joining an alternative
band in Los Angeles or possibly find a channel for his literary talents working with his older
sister in Hollywood.
But his son will have none of this. He is, instead, fully prepared to lie on the living room
couch eating, absorbing TV, and sleeping in a perpetual weekend of inactivity. All of his father's
entreaties to get up and move are greeted with total passivity.
What surprises Lutz the most, however, is the level of his own anger at Cody.
Remembering how his own father criticized his earlier journey of self-exploration, he was determined
not to repeat his father's behavior. But his anger flourishes nonetheless.
What is it about the nature of the work and leisure, he asks himself, which evokes such strong
emotional reactions? After all, isn't each person's work ethic merely a time-based reshuffling
of the ideas handed down to us by the Protestant Reformation?
Lutz, after some reflection, concludes that more is at stake here than just a set of ideas.
Ideas can make us angry - but not this angry! He goes on to argue, quite persuasively, that
we each "experience the work ethic as a feeling."
Look at the language of work itself, he suggests: "we love our job, we hate our job, we thank
God for Fridays and we are blue on Mondays." Indeed, how often are we as secretive about our feelings
regarding work as we are about the very personal fantasies of our love lives?
He further suggests, in the book's very compelling opening chapter, that if
"the self-made man pulling himself up by his own bootstraps is the typical American, the
slacker is his necessary twin, a figure without whom American history is equally unthinkable."
Taking this idea to one more level, he concludes that when we see the slacker idly resting
we "can feel attacked or ashamed, insulted or amused, repulsed or enticed" by that
image. It is fine if the slacker is me. But what if it is our neighbor - or someone of a different
age or cultural group?
With Cody on the couch and himself at work in the study, Lutz begins a superbly detailed analysis
of how our culture has reflected on these issues throughout time. Each historical period - from
the first machines of the Agricultural Revolution, through the Industrial Revolution, through
two World Wars and up through the dotcom '90s - is carefully examined.
We meet thinkers of each period as they struggle with such questions as: What is the
purpose of work? How much of our lives should it consume? Can it ever have real meaning and purpose
for any of us?
And, of course, leisure comes with its questions, too. Should humans (and for most of
history that has meant just men) work hard and then gain leisure as a reward? Or is leisure
a more natural state, a time when we can more fully develop ourselves as complete persons? Do artists of any kind truly work?
Although I found myself energized by such discussion on many occasions, at other times I was
frustrated. While no one can fault the sheer thoroughness of Lutz's research, that effort does
not keep "Doing Nothing" from sometimes becoming a chore for the reader.
Those sections of the book that deal with Benjamin Franklin, Herman Melville, Theodore Dreiser,
and the sufferers and healers of early 20th-century neurasthenia brim with wit and excitement.
But reading about the lives and ideas of Paul Lafargue (Karl Marx's tedious son-in-law), Oscar
Wilde, and Jack Kerouac borders on heavy labor. They may have been fascinating men, but Lutz's
discussion of them does not make you eager to linger in their company.
Yet despite occasional slowdowns, the journey this book allows us to make is well worth taking.
The questions it raises will remain the topic of serious discussion for many years to come.
• Larry Sears is a retired teacher who met with a variety of both slackers and strivers
over the course of many years in the classroom.
For those of us
who are non-stop workaholics, doing nothing can actually be pretty difficult! If you're like the
Energizer bunny in that you keep going, and going, and going, here's how to stop once in a while,
think pleasant thoughts, visit the beach, stare at the water, and just do nothing.
Steps
Plan ahead. Whether it's an hour, a day, a week, a month, or a year of doing nothing,
cancel all of your appointments for that block of time. Try to pick the most boring week or day,
a day where you'll most likely sleep most of the time.
Let people know. Tell everyone that you're going to be "busy" and will be unavailable.
Whether you choose to tell them that you're actually setting aside some time to do nothing, or
you just give them the vague explanation "I'm going to be busy" (busy doing nothing!), tell them
not to call, visit, or interrupt unless it's a real emergency.
Find a quiet, private place. Go somewhere you don't feel pressured to do anything.
This might be your bedroom, the backyard, or a local park. Find that place and go there.
Set your alarm. Set an alarm of some kind to go off when your "nothing" time is over,
so that you don't have to constantly look at the clock and count the minutes.
Turn off the phone. Turn off your cell phone, work phone, pager, PDA, Blackberry, computer
and any other means of sending or receiving calls or messages. These distractions will only keep
you from enjoying the nothing.
Sit by yourself. Feel the wind, the sun on your face, the chair touching your butt.
Listen to the rustle of the trees, birds chirping, water flowing. Always think about the past
or future. Avoid the temptation to turn on the TV, listen to music, write a note to yourself,
get a bite to eat, or anything else. The only thing you should do is go to the bathroom (if needed).
Learn how to free up your mind. Clear your mind of all thoughts of work, worries, family,
etc.. Doing this not only allows your body to do nothing, but your mind as well.
Tips
Setting aside some free time to do nothing on a regular basis is very healthy for your mind,
body, and emotional life, especially if you find that you're really wearing yourself thin. Often
times, we are encouraged by the actions of our fast-paced, high-information society to believe
that staying busy is a normal and natural state of existence. Remember, there is no guilt in giving
yourself some private downtime. How often you do nothing is up to you, but it should be a rejuvenating
experience.
Once you become good at doing nothing, you can use this newfound time and energy to think
of things, instead. This would not be doing "nothing," but thinking while shutting out the world.
Focusing on one thing this way will help you to concentrate better than having your mind zoom
over a million thoughts a minute.
If you live in a small apartment, set aside a corner of a larger room with floor pillows,
a softly scented candle and maybe a cozy throw. If these things aren't available, just find a
quiet place for yourself.
Try to temporarily forget about that work you have to get done, that test you need to study
for, or that place you need to be, and just relax.
If you really can't handle the idea (or guilt) of doing nothing, then learn how to fish. That
way you just lay by a river and say, "I'm not doing nothing, I'm fishing!"
Warnings
At first you may feel nervous, jittery, and restless. Try to relax and understand that
doing nothing does not mean that you're being unproductive or irresponsible. Keep in mind
that you are doing this in order to clear your mind and ultimately extend your life so that you
will have even more time. Ultimately, setting time aside to recharge your batteries will make
you more productive, creative, and more able to concentrate in the long run, and that's very good
for work, school, or other.
Starred Review. Lutz eases readers into this sparkling cultural history of stylish American
torpor with an anecdote about his 18-year-old son, Cody, moving into his house and bivouacking on
the couch-perhaps indefinitely. Lutz himself spent a decade before college "wandering here and abroad,"
so his intense anger at Cody surprised him-and inspired him to write this book about the crashing
fault lines between Anglo-America's vaunted Calvinist work ethic and its skulking, shrugging love
of idling. An English professor who admits to being personally caught between these warring impulses,
Lutz (Crying) has a gimlet eye for the ironies of modern loafing:
that the "flaming youth" of the 1920s were intensely industrious;
that our most celebrated slackers (Jack Kerouac, Richard Linklater) have been closet workaholics;
that our most outspoken Puritans (Benjamin Franklin, George W. Bush) have been notorious layabouts.
Lutz's diligent research on a range of lazy and slovenly subjects, from French flâneurs to New
York bohos, ultimately leads him to side with the bums. Flying in the face of yuppie values and critics
of the welfare state, his "slacker ethic" emerges over the course of this history as both a necessary
corrective to-and an inevitable outgrowth of-the 80-hour work week. (May)
Samuel Johnson identified literary loafers in his periodical Idler (1758-60), and here
Lutz lays sharp-eyed analysis on society's reaction toward those who repudiate regular work. Productively
informing his appraisals of the Thoreaus and Kerouacs with his own youthful experiment in communal
living, Lutz weaves no grand theory of the slacker because he finds that wastrels have been different
in every generation.
In the late 1700s, a disinclination to work was an aristocratic affectation.
In reaction to industrialism, the back-to-nature primitivist appeared, embodied by Thoreau, while
cultural vulgarity made the Gilded Age vulnerable to the effete cynicism of an Oscar Wilde.
In Wilde and others, Lutz nails, with concise sophistication, the mix of anger and amusement such
nonconformists provoked.
Though a serious study of spongers, this wry book is fun to read.
With layabouts such as Theodore Dreiser, the Beats, and our epoch's own Anna Nicole Simpson on
offer, cultural-history mavens won't be able to pass Lutz up.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
