![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Do We Really Have To Work?
Apr. 3rd, 2014 10:19 amCharles Stross has an interesting post today on what David Graeber calls "bullshit jobs." (see link above to find Graeber's article - LiveJournal won't let me link it.)
To summarize both men, they argue that we produce material goods more efficiently than at any time in previous history. This production has allowed 99% of us to move off of the farm (as late as 1800, 9 out of 10 people were farmers) and out of factories as well. (Even counting the low-wage factories of Asia, industrial employment as a percentage of population has gone down.) However, rather than reducing our hours worked, we've added clerical, managerial and other "non-productive" jobs and filled them with people. These people aren't happy and either aren't needed or could work half as many hours as they do now and still get the job done.
Now, I work at a bank, which is largely by definition full of clerical people, and my job is keeping their computers operational, so I have some biases. My first bias is that banks really are necessary. You need money to buy stuff, and you really need a place to stash said money other than your mattress. My second bias is that, in modern life, pretty much every business needs computers, which means somebody (either in-house or on-call) to fix them when they break.
Stross, in particular, argues that certain jobs are "real" in that failure to perform them means a city stops. His example is London Tube workers. I suggest that Stross is falling victim to the concept of "if I don't know how it works, it must be easy." If all the bank tellers go on strike, a city will also stop - not as fast, but money will cease to flow.
Having said that, I do think we're seeing a long-term trend that will, in fits and starts, continue. The long-term trend is away from hard physical labor and long hours. The 40-hour week is currently standard, but it wasn't always. Societies change slowly sometimes, but they do change. In this case, the change will involve working, but less hours.
To summarize both men, they argue that we produce material goods more efficiently than at any time in previous history. This production has allowed 99% of us to move off of the farm (as late as 1800, 9 out of 10 people were farmers) and out of factories as well. (Even counting the low-wage factories of Asia, industrial employment as a percentage of population has gone down.) However, rather than reducing our hours worked, we've added clerical, managerial and other "non-productive" jobs and filled them with people. These people aren't happy and either aren't needed or could work half as many hours as they do now and still get the job done.
Now, I work at a bank, which is largely by definition full of clerical people, and my job is keeping their computers operational, so I have some biases. My first bias is that banks really are necessary. You need money to buy stuff, and you really need a place to stash said money other than your mattress. My second bias is that, in modern life, pretty much every business needs computers, which means somebody (either in-house or on-call) to fix them when they break.
Stross, in particular, argues that certain jobs are "real" in that failure to perform them means a city stops. His example is London Tube workers. I suggest that Stross is falling victim to the concept of "if I don't know how it works, it must be easy." If all the bank tellers go on strike, a city will also stop - not as fast, but money will cease to flow.
Having said that, I do think we're seeing a long-term trend that will, in fits and starts, continue. The long-term trend is away from hard physical labor and long hours. The 40-hour week is currently standard, but it wasn't always. Societies change slowly sometimes, but they do change. In this case, the change will involve working, but less hours.
