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 :-)
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 have a psychopathic boss. If not yest you will soon have. that the logic of neoliberlism too (profits
before people). Or authoritarian boss. 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.
Here we will discuss just one -- slakerism. 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 society
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 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!
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, Information technology,
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 price of oil is the major factor in economic growth that author
forgot to take into account, but they have a point.
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
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
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.
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
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
(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
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 ..."
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
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, "
." The piece encapsulates the argument
spelled out in Livingston's latest book,
More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea
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 "
," 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
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,
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.
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
Thus upon encountering Aeon Magazine's
tagline for Livingston's piece-"What if jobs are not
the solution, but the problem?"-I immediately began
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
the basis for a renewed leftist
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 –
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
. 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
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 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 (
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
It is obvious by your post that the
menial job he would enjoy does not
correspond to what you could offer the
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
Any action that produces a good or a
service is a form of work. Hugging is a
service. So are smiling and cleaning a
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
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
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.
"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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
All this to say that even if we guarantee
jobs the physical world of resources will
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
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
"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
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
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
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
So pushing more money into the system
just inflates the system while
sustaining the ongoing upward
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
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.
Kwame Anthony Appiah talks about the end to
duels in his book on Honor. It's interesting
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
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
problems that need to be solved in
order for society to work.
"neoliberalism is simply old fashioned
laissez-faire capitalism with better
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
It reminds me of the (probably apocryphal)
anecdote about Queen Victoria hearing about
Darwin's Origin of Species and asking, "Is it
"I'm afraid so, your majesty."
"Well then, let's hope the commoners don't
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
"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.
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
It seems to me we have done that no work
experiment for .OH, 70 years. Its called social
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
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,
And to the extent old people are
isolated, more money would do a lot to allow
old people to take cruises and
activities that cost money
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
– 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
. "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
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.
"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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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 -
So the bottom line is we either need to
cut hours of work at least in half or the
remaining hours need to be
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 "
of political economy
" that were discredited
more than a century ago but nonetheless get
repeated as gospel
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
. 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
"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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
"... By far the biggest act of wage slavery rebellion, don't buy shit. The less you buy, the less you need to earn. Holidays by far the minority of your life should not be a desperate escape from the majority of your life. Spend less, work less and actually really enjoy living more. ..."
"... How about don't shop at Walmart (they helped boost the Chinese economy while committing hari kari on the American Dream) and actually engaging in proper labour action? Calling in sick is just plain childish. ..."
"... I'm all for sticking it to the man, but when you call into work for a stupid reason (and a hangover is a very stupid reason), it is selfish, and does more damage to the cause of worker's rights, not less. I don't know about where you work, but if I call in sick to my job, other people have to pick up my slack. I work for a public library, and we don't have a lot of funds, so we have the bear minimum of employees we can have and still work efficiently. As such, if anybody calls in, everyone else, up to and including the library director, have to take on more work. ..."
"Phoning in sick is a revolutionary act." I loved that slogan. It came to me, as so many good
things did, from Housmans, the radical bookshop in King's Cross. There you could rummage through
all sorts of anarchist pamphlets and there I discovered, in the early 80s, the wondrous little magazine
Processed World. It told you basically how to screw up your workplace. It was smart and full of small
acts of random subversion. In many ways it was ahead of its time as it was coming out of San Francisco
and prefiguring Silicon Valley. It saw the machines coming. Jobs were increasingly boring and innately
meaningless. Workers were "data slaves" working for IBM ("Intensely Boring Machines").
What Processed World was doing was trying to disrupt the identification so many office workers
were meant to feel with their management, not through old-style union organising, but through small
acts of subversion. The modern office, it stressed, has nothing to do with human need. Its rebellion
was about working as little as possible, disinformation and sabotage. It was making alienation fun.
In 1981, it could not have known that a self-service till cannot ever phone in sick.
I was thinking of this today, as I wanted to do just that. I have made myself ill with a hangover.
A hangover, I always feel, is nature's way of telling you to have a day off. One can be macho about
it and eat your way back to sentience via the medium of bacon sandwiches and Maltesers. At work,
one is dehydrated, irritable and only semi-present. Better, surely, though to let the day fall through
you and dream away.
Having worked in America, though, I can say for sure that they brook no excuses whatsoever. When
I was late for work and said things like, "My alarm clock did not go off", they would say that this
was not a suitable explanation, which flummoxed me. I had to make up others. This was just to work
in a shop.
This model of working – long hours, very few holidays, few breaks, two incomes needed to raise
kids, crazed loyalty demanded by huge corporations, the American way – is where we're heading. Except
now the model is even more punishing. It is China. We are expected to compete with an economy whose
workers are often closer to indentured slaves than anything else.
This is what striving is, then: dangerous, demoralising, often dirty work. Buckle down. It's the
only way forward, apparently, which is why our glorious leaders are sucking up to China, which is
immoral, never mind ridiculously short-term thinking.
So again I must really speak up for the skivers. What we have to understand about austerity is
its psychic effects. People must have less. So they must have less leisure, too. The fact is life
is about more than work and work is rapidly changing. Skiving in China may get you killed but here
it may be a small act of resistance, or it may just be that skivers remind us that there is meaning
Work is too often discussed by middle-class people in ways that are simply unrecognisable to anyone
who has done crappy jobs. Much work is not interesting and never has been. Now that we have a political
and media elite who go from Oxbridge to working for a newspaper or a politician, a lot of nonsense
is spouted. These people have not cleaned urinals on a nightshift. They don't sit lonely in petrol
stations manning the till. They don't have to ask permission for a toilet break in a call centre.
Instead, their work provides their own special identity. It is very important.
Low-status jobs, like caring, are for others. The bottom-wipers of this world do it for the glory,
I suppose. But when we talk of the coming automation that will reduce employment, bottom-wiping will
not be mechanised. Nor will it be romanticised, as old male manual labour is. The mad idea of reopening
the coal mines was part of the left's strange notion of the nobility of labour. Have these people
ever been down a coal mine? Would they want that life for their children?
Instead we need to talk about the dehumanising nature of work. Bertrand Russell and Keynes thought
our goal should be less work, that technology would mean fewer hours.
Far from work giving meaning to life, in some surveys 40% of us say that our jobs are meaningless.
Nonetheless, the art of skiving is verboten as we cram our children with ever longer hours of school
and homework. All this striving is for what exactly? A soul-destroying job?
Just as education is decided by those who loved school, discussions about work are had by those
to whom it is about more than income.
The parts of our lives that are not work – the places we dream or play or care, the space we may
find creative – all these are deemed outside the economy. All this time is unproductive. But who
Skiving work is bad only to those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
So go on: phone in sick. You know you want to.
friedad 23 Oct 2015 18:27
We now exist in a society in which the Fear Cloud is wrapped around each citizen. Our proud
history of Union and Labor, fighting for decent wages and living conditions for all citizens,
and mostly achieving these aims, a history, which should be taught to every child educated in
every school in this country, now gradually but surely eroded by ruthless speculators in government,
is the future generations are inheriting. The workforce in fear of taking a sick day, the young
looking for work in fear of speaking out at diminishing rewards, definitely this 21st Century
is the Century of Fear. And how is this fear denied, with mind blowing drugs, regardless if it
is is alcohol, description drugs, illicit drugs, a society in denial. We do not require a heavenly
object to destroy us, a few soulless monsters in our mist are masters of manipulators, getting
closer and closer to accomplish their aim of having zombies doing their beckoning. Need a kidney,
no worries, zombie dishwasher, is handy for one. Oh wait that time is already here.
Hemulen6 23 Oct 2015 15:06
Oh join the real world, Suzanne! Many companies now have a limit to how often you can be sick.
In the case of the charity I work for it's 9 days a year. I overstepped it, I was genuinely sick,
and was hauled up in front of Occupational Health. That will now go on my record and count against
me. I work for a cancer care charity. Irony? Surely not.
AlexLeo -> rebel7 23 Oct 2015 13:34
Which is exactly my point. You compete on relevant job skills and quality of your product,
not what school you have attended.
Yes, there are thousands, tens of thousands of folks here around San Jose who barely speak
English, but are smart and hard working as hell and it takes them a few years to get to 150-200K
per year, Many of them get to 300-400K, if they come from strong schools in their countries of
origin, compared to the 10k or so where they came from, but probably more than the whining readership
This is really difficult to swallow for the Brits back in Britain, isn't it. Those who have
moved over have experiences the type of social mobility unthinkable in Britain, but they have
had to work hard and get to 300K-700K per year, much better than the 50-100K their parents used
to make back in GB. These are averages based on personal interactions with say 50 Brits in the
last 15 + years, all employed in the Silicon Valley in very different jobs and roles.
Todd Owens -> Scott W 23 Oct 2015 11:00
I get what you're saying and I agree with a lot of what you said. My only gripe is most employees
do not see an operation from a business owner or managerial / financial perspective. They don't
understand the costs associated with their performance or lack thereof. I've worked on a lot of
projects that we're operating at a loss for a future payoff. When someone decides they don't want
to do the work they're contracted to perform that can have a cascading effect on the entire company.
All in all what's being described is for the most part misguided because most people are not
in the position or even care to evaluate the particulars. So saying you should do this to accomplish
that is bullshit because it's rarely such a simple equation. If anything this type of tactic will
leaf to MORE loss and less money for payroll.
weematt -> Barry1858 23 Oct 2015 09:04
Sorry you just can't have a 'nicer' capitalism.
War ( business by other means) and unemployment ( you can't buck the market), are inevitable
concomitants of capitalist competition over markets, trade routes and spheres of interests.
(Remember the war science of Nagasaki and Hiroshima from the 'good guys' ?)
"..capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt". (Marx)
You can't have full employment, or even the 'Right to Work'.
There is always ,even in boom times a reserve army of unemployed, to drive down wages. (If
necessary they will inject inflation into the economy)
Unemployment is currently 5.5 percent or 1,860,000 people. If their "equilibrium rate" of
unemployment is 4% rather than 5% this would still mean 1,352,000 "need be unemployed". The
government don't want these people to find jobs as it would strengthen workers' bargaining
position over wages, but that doesn't stop them harassing them with useless and petty
form-filling, reporting to the so-called "job centre" just for the sake of it, calling them
scroungers and now saying they are mentally defective.
Government is 'over' you not 'for' you.
Governments do not exist to ensure 'fair do's' but to manage social expectations with the
minimum of dissent, commensurate with the needs of capitalism in the interests of profit.
Worker participation amounts to self managing workers self exploitation for the maximum of
profit for the capitalist class.
Exploitation takes place at the point of production.
" Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to
inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wages system!'"
Karl Marx [Value, Price and Profit]
John Kellar 23 Oct 2015 07:19
Fortunately; as a retired veteran I don't have to worry about phoning in sick.However;
during my Air Force days if you were sick, you had to get yourself to the Base Medical Section
and prove to a medical officer that you were sick. If you convinced the medical officer of
your sickness then you may have been luck to receive on or two days sick leave. For those who
were very sick or incapable of getting themselves to Base Medical an ambulance would be sent -
Rchrd Hrrcks -> wumpysmum 23 Oct 2015 04:17
The function of civil disobedience is to cause problems for the government. Let's imagine
that we could get 100,000 people to agree to phone in sick on a particular date in protest at
austerity etc. Leaving aside the direct problems to the economy that this would cause. It
would also demonstrate a willingness to take action. It would demonstrate a capability to
organise mass direct action. It would demonstrate an ability to bring people together to fight
injustice. In and of itself it might not have much impact, but as a precedent set it could be
the beginning of something massive, including further acts of civil disobedience.
wumpysmum Rchrd Hrrcks 23 Oct 2015 03:51
There's already a form of civil disobedience called industrial action, which the govt are
currently attacking by attempting to change statute. Random sickies as per my post above are
certainly not the answer in the public sector at least, they make no coherent political point
just cause problems for colleagues. Sadly too in many sectors and with the advent of zero
hours contracts sickies put workers at risk of sanctions and lose them earnings.
Alyeska 22 Oct 2015 22:18
I'm American. I currently have two jobs and work about 70 hours a week, and I get no paid
sick days. In fact, the last time I had a job with a paid sick day was 2001. If I could afford
a day off, you think I'd be working 70 hours a week?
I barely make rent most months, and yes... I have two college degrees. When I try to organize
my coworkers to unionize for decent pay and benefits, they all tell me not to bother.... they
are too scared of getting on management's "bad side" and "getting in trouble" (yes, even
though the law says management can't retaliate.)
Unions are different in the USA than in the UK. The workforce has to take a vote to unionize
the company workers; you can't "just join" a union here. That's why our pay and working
conditions have gotten worse, year after year.
rtb1961 22 Oct 2015 21:58
By far the biggest act of wage slavery rebellion, don't buy shit. The less you buy, the
less you need to earn. Holidays by far the minority of your life should not be a desperate
escape from the majority of your life. Spend less, work less and actually really enjoy living
Pay less attention to advertising and more attention to the enjoyable simplicity of life,
of real direct human relationships, all of them, the ones in passing where you wish a stranger
well, chats with service staff to make their life better as well as your own, exchange
thoughts and ideas with others, be a human being and share humanity with other human beings.
Mkjaks 22 Oct 2015 20:35
How about don't shop at Walmart (they helped boost the Chinese economy while committing
hari kari on the American Dream) and actually engaging in proper labour action? Calling in
sick is just plain childish.
toffee1 22 Oct 2015 19:13
It is only considered productive if it feeds the beast, that is, contribute to the
accumulation of capital so that the beast can have more power over us. The issue here is the
wage labor. The 93 percent of the U.S. working population perform wage labor (see BLS site).
It is the highest proportion in any society ever came into history. Under the wage labor
(employment) contract, the worker gives up his/her decision making autonomy. The worker
accepts the full command of his/her employer during the labor process. The employer directs
and commands the labor process to achieve the goals set by himself. Compare this, for example,
self-employed providing a service (for example, a plumber). In this case, the customer
describes the problem to the service provider but the service provider makes all the decisions
on how to organize and apply his labor to solve the problem. Or compare it to a democratically
organized coop, where workers make all the decisions collectively, where, how and what to
produce. Under the present economic system, a great majority of us are condemned to work in
large corporations performing wage labor. The system of wage labor stripping us from autonomy
on our own labor, creates all the misery in our present world through alienation. Men and
women lose their humanity alienated from their own labor. Outside the world of wage labor,
labor can be a source self-realization and true freedom. Labor can be the real fulfillment and
love. Labor together our capacity to love make us human. Bourgeoisie dehumanized us steeling
our humanity. Bourgeoisie, who sold her soul to the beast, attempting to turn us into ever
consuming machines for the accumulation of capital.
patimac54 -> Zach Baker 22 Oct 2015 17:39
Well said. Most retail employers have cut staff to the minimum possible to keep the stores
open so if anyone is off sick, it's the devil's own job trying to just get customers served.
Making your colleagues work even harder than they normally do because you can't be bothered to
act responsibly and show up is just plain selfish.
And sorry, Suzanne, skiving work is nothing more than an act of complete disrespect for those
you work with. If you don't understand that, try getting a proper job for a few months and
learn how to exercise some self control.
TettyBlaBla -> FranzWilde 22 Oct 2015 17:25
It's quite the opposite in government jobs where I am in the US. As the fiscal year comes
to a close, managers look at their budgets and go on huge spending sprees, particularly for
temp (zero hours in some countries) help and consultants. They fear if they don't spend
everything or even a bit more, their spending will be cut in the next budget. This results in
people coming in to do work on projects that have no point or usefulness, that will never be
completed or even presented up the food chain of management, and ends up costing taxpayers a
I did this one year at an Air Quality Agency's IT department while the paid employees sat
at their desks watching portable televisions all day. It was truly demeaning.
oommph -> Michael John Jackson 22 Oct 2015 16:59
Thing is though, children - dependents to pay for - are the easiest way to keep yourself
chained to work.
The homemaker model works as long as your spouse's employer retains them (and your spouse
retains you in an era of 40% divorce).
You are just as dependent on an employer and "work" but far less in control of it now.
Zach Baker 22 Oct 2015 16:41
I'm all for sticking it to "the man," but when you call into work for a stupid reason
(and a hangover is a very stupid reason), it is selfish, and does more damage to the cause of
worker's rights, not less. I don't know about where you work, but if I call in sick to my job,
other people have to pick up my slack. I work for a public library, and we don't have a lot of
funds, so we have the bear minimum of employees we can have and still work efficiently. As
such, if anybody calls in, everyone else, up to and including the library director, have to
take on more work. If I found out one of my co-workers called in because of a hangover,
I'd be pissed. You made the choice to get drunk, knowing that you had to work the following
morning. Putting it into the same category of someone who is sick and may not have the luxury
of taking off because of a bad employer is insulting.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
...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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
- 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
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
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
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"
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
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.
There is a report at
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.
The tenor of this argument is shared by
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
There is no substitute for real work and everyone knows the difference between it, slacking and
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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!"
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
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.