By now we should be working 15-hour weeks thanks to the advances in technology. So what happened?
David Graeber argues that the maths is right. The amount of actual work needed has reduced, so now we invent extra jobs that serve no purpose - what he calls BS jobs.
Why does this happen and how can we avoid it in the future? Here is what I got from the book.
What are some examples?
- The guy who has to double-check every computer scanned application form to make sure the computer interprets people's handwriting correctly. (Spoiler alert: It does. Every time. But it's in the contract that each one has to be human-checked.) It would bearable if they were applications for organ transplants, but they are applications for loyalty rewards cards. Ugh!
- The German military outsourced its IT and logistics. Now when a soldier at a base needs to move his computer two doors down the hall, Kurt has to drive up to 500 km to move it for him - and fill out all the requisite paperwork.
- The travel company employee who receives the plane schedule in an email and copies it (by hand) into Excel.
What it's NOT
It does not include jobs just because of poor pay and conditions like a cleaner. That has a useful outcome. Same goes for garbage collectors, mechanics etc. We'd all be in real trouble without those jobs.
When tube workers took strike action for better pay, it paralysed London (and there were complaints). But the fact that London is paralysed without them shows the importance of their work.
How big is this?
A UK survey asked people if their job "makes a meaningful contribution to the world".
37% said no, with another 13% not sure. A similar Dutch survey said 40%.
Other studies show up to 50% of work time is a waste. (Think about most emails and meetings). The author suggests that automation did cause mass unemployment, but we've filled the gaps by adding "dummy jobs that are effectively made up".
The effect on people
Lillian gets most of her meaning from her job. But now it has no meaning or purpose. She suffers anxiety (the job could be cut at any time) has low confidence (is her ability still there if she needs it) and wonders if coworkers resent her, as she's paid quite a lot.
Our work is a major part of our lives. Hence the common question "What do you do?", where it's implied the answer is your job.
Vasily replies that she works for the foreign ministry. When people react with respect that makes it worse, she says. "There is nothing to say. Nothing to be proud of."
It's weird situation. Normally if we're being bullied there's a clear bully. But who is making us do this? The company? Society? The economy?
Is it the government?
How many times have politicians boasted about 'creating' jobs? How many campaigns include promises of more jobs? All of them?
When Obama changed US healthcare, some campaigned for even more change - to make it even more efficient and affordable. Obama remarked that the extra savings would mean job losses - seemingly preferring to maintain arguably pointless jobs even if it meant higher prices.
Is it business?
In theory businesses should be looking to reduce unnecessary expenses to increase profit. But that's in theory.
Simon was hired to analyse a bank's operations. He found that through automation and eliminating duplication the bank could reduce from 60,000 to 12,000 staff.
This suggestion died in the boardroom. Why would management object to such a cost saving? Perhaps it would mean less need for management positions.
Is it the rich and powerful?
The author's friend was a musician with mainstream radio airplay. But that dried up. He moved to corporate law, and is now very 'successful' but in a meaningless BS job.
Apparently the richest 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth. Is it then much of a surprise that the market for corporate lawyers is greater than the market for good musicians?
A corporate lawyer from Australia says his job contributes nothing and he is utterly miserable. Why does he do it? He says it's the only way he can "contribute to the 1% in a way as to reward him with a house in Sydney and money for a future family."
Is it work ethic?
"We have become a civilisation based on work - not even productive work - but work as an end and meaning in itself."
Sometimes politicians talk about the 'dignity' of having a job. But how much dignity is there when you feel your job shouldn't exist?
It's "not so much even that work is good but that not working is very bad; that anyone not slaving away harder than he'd like at something he doesn't especially enjoy is a bad person."
This is reflected is by politicians, talking lovingly about 'hard-working Australians', meaning those in paid work - regardless of how pointless the task may be.
Is it society?
Hence we are "engaged in utterly meaningless or even counterproductive activities - usually under the orders of a person we dislike."
It seems to be an unspoken (possibly imaginary) rule that we all have to inflict this on ourselves. And we harbour resentment to anyone not following the made-up rule. And the resentment flows many ways.
People without work resent the employed for having a job. The employed resent those without work for receiving a meagre benefit.
People doing important work resent those with BS jobs for their high incomes. Those with BS jobs resent those doing important work for being able to experience meaning and purpose.
(It's interesting that the more meaningful jobs are less well paid. Especially here in 2020 when we're talking about "essential workers" not many of them are the ones earning 200k)
What can we do?
We could change our cultural views
We could realise that destroying your mind and body in paid work is not ideal. Even if it's for our kids, what's the point if they never see us because we're at work all the time. (Is there anything more heart-breaking than hearing a kid say "Daddies can't do anything - they're too busy with work"?)
Aristotle realised a long time ago that work doesn't make you a better person but rather a worse one, because it takes so much time away from the important things in life.
More recently Buckminster Fuller, himself an inventor, said, "We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everyone has to be employed in some sort of drudgery because ... he must justify his right to exist".
It doesn't need to be that way. At some level we already realise the error of being so work-focussed.
"Visit a graveyard; you will search in vain for a tombstone marked with the words 'executive vice-president', 'park ranger' or 'clerk'. While alive, in contrast, the first question anyone was likely to have asked on meeting any of these people was, 'What do you do for a living?'."
We could choose Financial Independence
"All of the gratuitous sadism of workplace politics depends on one's inability to say 'I quit' and feel no economic consequences."
This is so true. I truly believe that if more of us were financially independent, then workplaces would become far better places to be. They'd have to be. Or employees would vote with their feet.
If we chose to be at work for reasons of interest, self-development and a pleasant work environment, employers would need to provide those things. But when we're desperate for the money, the promise of cash is enough.
In short
It seems that we could easily eliminate half the work we do - and have much more free time. There's just a couple of problems. We'd have to change our attitude that our worth is tied to how much we torture ourselves. Also, we'd have to admit that a lot of what we're doing now is completely pointless.
Do you reckon we're up for the challenge?
PS. If you liked this, you may like to see my other book reviews, or subscribe for future ones.
Comments
Post a Comment