Hacker News Reader

Comment by comice | Hacker News Reader

> Employment today is increasingly a heavily biased and ethically corrupt way of implementing UBI.

I've see this said similarly before but find it unbelievable. Why would any company want to employ people en masse as a benefit primarily for the employees?

How would that even arise? And if it did, how wouldn't another more efficient company out-compete them?

I accept that it's possible companies don't want to invest in or take the risk of automation, but that's nothing like it being some kind of conscious UBI-like policy decision.

View on HN

I think this happens because a lot of people (especially younger people) have an outsized idea of how important a job needs to be in order for it to be meaningful (and hence, not bullshit). If you aren't CHANGING THE WORLD or some such, you have a bullshit job.

In reality, the vast majority of things that need doing in the world are pretty mundane. Most of us just have a small part in a mundane machine. But that does't mean it's not a part that matters. It just doesn't matter very much, because you are one of 7 billion people. And that's OK.

> If you aren't CHANGING THE WORLD or some such, you have a bullshit job.

Are you saying that you think any non-world-changing job is bullshit or that you think other people hold that view?

Either way, this is a bullshit definition. Growing food isn't a "bullshit" job but also doesn't change the world. Most jobs don't "change the world", regardless of how important they are. Most people who think they are changing the world are just self-delusional.

I'm saying that I think other people hold that view.

I do not hold that view.

I'm sorry if that was unclear in my comment. I basically agree with everything you said.

The OP references the Misemployment essay which very clearly takes this view.

"He is joined in the misemployment ranks by people who make cigarettes, addictive but sterile television shows, badly designed condos, ill-fitting and shoddy clothes, deceptive advertisements, artery-clogging biscuits and highly-sugared drinks (however delicious)."

I think our bullshit jobs guy is a bullshit writer, personally. Shoddy condos, you might not like, but they provide housing. Shoddy clothes provide warmth. You might not like it, you might not agree with the incentives behind it, but they can be and are important parts of some people's existence.

https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/unemployment-d...

Seems more to me that people are realizing how replaceable their jobs are and that many are dead end career paths. If they look into the future a bit, what will they really have from working there? Is the experience of a job that is going to disappear in 15 years worth anything? Is it going to provide an appreciable amount of income that can be put towards retirement investments? Why would you choose a path that has the high potential of you still being poor 10 years later, especially during the prime of your life? Some might see the potential for better opportunities arising if they are patient and are ready to jump at just the right moment.

I don't think his sentiment is that companies are doing it on purpose.

Don't feed the UBI trolls.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com