
What Work is Really For - dulse
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/work-good-or-bad/
======
moxie
This article's conclusion is kind of a let-down, but I think the thrust of it
touches on part of what bothers me about the Bay Area entrepreneur scene: the
strangely myopic focus on "business" as the primary mechanism for "creating."

If we can accept that there are profitable companies which aren't socially
productive or inspiring, shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a
myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to
build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit?

I can understand needing to sustain your own existence, but I'm always curious
why "entrepreneurs" who've made enough to live comfortably (and even to endow
their children) continue focus their productive energy on building companies
measured by financial success, rather than exploring other creative
possibilities.

~~~
JamesLeonis
I think one reason the conclusion doesn't satisfy is because the question of
"What do we do in a post-work world?" is horribly open ended. I believe the
question is relevant as technology and automation increasingly penetrate
manufacturing, business administration, and (soon to be) transportation to
name a few.

To put it bluntly, for most programmers, it's our job to put others out of a
job. The things we build make it easier to automate, streamline, and other
buzzwords, which generally means that a company doesn't have to keep as many
workers on the payroll. The business administration side is fairly decimated,
and I believe the falling prices of 3D printers and robotized factories will
lead to automated on-demand manufacturing. This means more people won't be
able to find work, which will depress the demand for products. It's an
interesting problem.

> shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects
> which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they
> obviously won't turn a profit?

Yes. I would argue that the artifacts of human culture (portraits, frescoes,
symphonies, statues, etc), in many cases, have no obvious financial benefit at
the time. They exist because they appeal to our aesthetic side and the
creators lived at the pleasure of rich sponsors.

Many programs of the Open Source universe started as an annoyance or a fling
without any thought of profitability. Several tech companies started as
research projects or "the itch" with no money in sight. Much of our software
is still built pro-bono by an army of volunteers.

In this way programming starts to mirror the art world. The mindset to adopt
is to create for the sake of creating, and letting others critique the work.
Think about a programmer version of art hostels in Paris of early 20th
century. In fact, go watch Midnight in Paris and see if you can picture (hah!)
programmers drinking and talking instead of artists and writers. There are
programmers out there like that, like Mr. Bellard and his DIY cell phone base
station [1] or John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace [2]. They build for the sake
of building something cool.

[1]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4469424> [2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack#Armadillo_Aerospac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack#Armadillo_Aerospace)

For your second question, I can only assume that many entrepreneurs enjoy the
challenge of building successful companies. Being wildly successful means they
have additional capital and can chase larger and more complex problems. SpaceX
comes to mind. Granted I can't think of a founder that was very successful
start something trivial (I'm sure they're out there).

~~~
tluyben2
A post work world exists for the majority of humans on earth. That's why we
are growing much too fast; China and a lot of Asia will be unemployed in the
future (Foxconn firing their employees in favor of robots will become common
with robot prices falling) (not to mention the move back to to west for
several branches/markets, but even without that); most people in country X
(not only China) can simply do nothing more than repetitive labor and those
will be done in the future. I wouldn't give that 100 years.

What 'we' (of the HN crowd) will do post-work is easy; we will make new work.
That's not an option for most (I'm not sure if it's 99+% but I guess it is).
Happiness in a Federation (Start Trek) utopia is not very hard to imagine for
people who have hobbies and passions. With real holodecks it's probably not
hard to imagine for people with less ambitions or passions, but that's so
incredibly 'not here' yet...

~~~
satori99
> Foxconn firing their employees in favor of robots will become common with
> robot prices falling

So when the employees start assembling robots, they know the gig is up?

~~~
tluyben2
I would think so; as we see there is not much else this kind of employee can
do, so unless they have a skill which is harder to replace by robots, I fear
the worst.

Something with 'voice' would be good for instance, because voice recognition
sucks still. Call centers and such are not completely replaceable by 'Watsons'
yet because the recognition still really stinks.

------
oleganza
Author fails to mention:

1\. That "capitalism" does not produce anything. It is people who produce for
each other.

2\. Who to decide what's needed for _particular_ human's flourishing?

3\. Who to decide how exactly, at what costs "schools should aim to produce
self-determining agents"?

Capitalism is defined by property ownership, it does not have any inherent
rules how to profit. And profits, after all, are not monetary, but subjective.
You are earning money being software developer, not carpenter because probably
it fulfills your life better this way, with lesser regard of the amount
earned.

Truth is nobody can authoritatively answer what is good for other people. But
if everybody respects each other's property, it is possible to see how for
each pair of exchanging persons both parties profit. Even "useless"
speculators are doing social good by equalizing prices making calculations and
predictions easier (unless they participate in Fed's money printing, which is
not a feature of capitalism, but simple robbery).

------
yummyfajitas
The point that we are consumers first and producers second is a very good one.
We absolutely need to accept that jobs are a cost, not a benefit.

But the article goes way off the rails towards the middle:

 _"But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is
essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the
better."_

This is silly. Insofar as capitalism makes normative claims, the claims are
merely that people should be able to do as they wish with their own property.
It also makes the positive claim that allowing people to do this will
typically increase utility for all market agents.

I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people
without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to
buy? Huh?

~~~
dulse
I think the point he makes in the middle is a good one, even if he
oversimplifies capitalism's claims. Increasing market utility under capitalism
says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it
says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. And
you can see many instances of (especially deregulated) capitalism spin out
profound and unethical unhappiness (e.g., the US meatpacking industry in the
early 20th century). The point he is raising is that there is an essential
disconnect between the things that we as human beings care about (eg, quality
of life, improving the world, raising families, aesthetic pleasures,
knowledge) and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit).

As for the conclusion, I agree he does sort of get in the weeds a bit (what
kind of education does he see as training consumers? I never took a class on
that...). But he seems to be getting at the idea that part of the role of
education in capitalism is empowering free agents to make ethical, informed
purchasing decisions so that the free market veers toward good. If we aren't
educated on broad topics and don't have autonomous free thinking, we might not
believe in global warming and therefore not create a market for electric cars;
or we not care about the ethical treatment of animals, so disregard organics
and keep our cheaper Tyson products.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the
quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of
happiness or quality of life in a free market._

Are you claiming there is some huge gap between utility and happiness/quality
of life?

Note that utility is defined as what people choose for themselves. How do you
define happiness or quality of life?

 _...and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit)._

You make the same fallacy the OP does. Agents in capitalism care about
utility, not profit.

See this piece I wrote a while back, for example, which explains why we have
such a large leisure class in America in a purely _utility_ maximizing
framework. (Hint: profit != utility.)

[http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...](http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html)

------
norswap
I encourage you to read the essay referenced in the article:
<http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html> (In Praise of Idleness, by Bertrand
Russel)

A true eye opener.

~~~
panacea
Can't be bothered.

~~~
polynomial
That's lethargy, not idleness.

------
swalsh
I used to program as my leisure activity. Now it's my job. Why does my day job
feel like work? I have less freedom to play! When I programmed at home, i'd
use the technology I wanted, i'd try new things. At work, i'm more rigorous. I
do what works, not what's fun.

------
dmk23
The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really
simple.

Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people
are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling
work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by
this definition alone.

One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about
themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising
technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of
some kind to feel like they have accomplished something.

Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you
happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever
path you have chosen.

EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over
lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead".
If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about
your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of
life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many
people. Go for it!

~~~
tonyedgecombe
"just find a career that makes you happy!"

Looking at my friends, relatives and neighbours I would say this is a lot
harder than it sounds.

~~~
tluyben2
That depends on what 'hard' means; it's hard to take the step, not to actually
do it. People are very scared and security seeking. I don't like the ex CEO of
godaddy much, but 'security is for corpses' is definitely something he was
right about. When you are born, you are almost dead. There is no reason to be
so careful; I mean, don't drunk-drive or inject yourself with random stuff to
get a maybe-high, but doing only stuff you like? Whats the harm in that?
You're going to die if there is a mistake? No, you'll have a maybe temporary
hard time. At least you did what you like. It's incredible what small amount
of people actually do this. Most people agree with this though but they don't
do because of BUNCH_OF_SECURITY_EXCUSES.

Edit: I seem to have remembered the phrase from Bob Parsons incorrectly. It's
"Security is for cadavers." (<http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php>). I
hoped that it actually was from someone else :)

~~~
_delirium
> No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time.

If you come from a middle-class family that can provide a safety net for you,
or live in a social-democratic country that provides a safety-net for
everyone, then yes; you end up with some unpleasant months and get back on
your feet. But in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations,
perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or
a permanent address that are very useful for getting jobs or otherwise making
money. If you end up in that kind of position, it can be very hard to get back
out of it, so most people, especially from less-well-off backgrounds, put a
large premium on minimizing the risk of getting into it in the first place.
Hence, a preference for "safe" jobs at larger companies.

(Part of the problem is that what does exist of a safety net in the U.S. moves
at a glacial pace, and is geared towards chronically poor people. For example,
housing assistance programs typically have years-long waiting lists, so they
serve the exact opposite use-case from the person who needs a place to live
ASAP, but only for a few months until they can pay their own rent again.)

~~~
ams6110
_in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless,
and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent
address ... it can be very hard to get back out of it_

True, if you are relying on government/social programs to get you out. Such
programs tend to keep you in your bad situation, as doing so perpetuates the
survival of the social program and its budget.

There are examples of people who have experimentally, deliberately put
themselves in such circumstances and worked their way out in a relatively
short time.

~~~
_delirium
I've seen the latter examples, but am skeptical of them as evidence. They seem
to be people who do have safety nets, from middle-class or upper-middle-class
families, doing it as a sort of game so they can blog about it, with a bail-
out option available at any time.

The U.S. social programs do seem particularly poorly managed compared to most
first-world countries, especially because they aren't integrated or at all set
up for rapid but temporary assistance.

Here in Denmark (I'm American, but moved), the social programs are much more
responsive on both ends: they are fast to get into, and intended to provide a
path out. A social worker can get you into a rented apartment paid for by a
housing-assistance program _this week_ , possibly even on the same day—not
next year—so you're instantly off the streets, with a regular mailing address.
Together with that, you'll also have job-placement assistance, internship
opportunities, and generally a support network intended to get you paying your
own rent in short order. So the assistance is fast but intended to be
temporary, and generally works well for most people who temporarily find
themselves in dire straits. The main exceptions are people with psychiatric
problems or drug addictions, who are treated separately.

------
blackhole
If my job is to do what I'd do in my free time anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm
not happy if I play games all day, I'm happy when I build something other
people want to use. I'm happy when I solve problems. I'm happy when I make
something that entertains others.

Work is the result of people being unable to find what makes them both happy
and productive.

------
leot
The division between "leisure" and "work" proffered is too coarse and binary.

A continuity of work-y-ness makes more sense: the degree to which something
qualifies as "work" is proportional to how distal the reward is.

Most leisure provides immediate reward for some amount of effort/energy
expended, or at the very least provides little reward but demands little, too.
But when the only pay-off for one's effort is years away, this is when true
work takes place.

------
michaelochurch
Work as in productive activity is a part of who we are, but this world in
which people have to deal with the stress and misery and downright
inefficiency of a subordinate context is a disaster. And it's not stable. What
happened to agricultural commodities in the 1920s-30s (leading to rural
poverty and the Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. The
work of unmotivated people is worth almost zero, but most people don't have
the social access and trust to get out of the subordinate context and into a
motivat _ing_ role.

The next 50 years may be really great, or we may see a violent, global class
war that kills millions. It depends on how the surplus and resources are
distributed.

