12 ms·

I think this is more true than many would like to admit. Maybe 'most work' as meaningless isn't the way I would phrase it, but I know many including myself tha

by jly 9y ago

I think this is more true than many would like to admit. Maybe 'most work' as meaningless isn't the way I would phrase it, but I know many including myself that are often creatively and technically challenged, work an average number of hours, but feel the mental stress of burnout purely because of the guilt and resentment of spending so much time on the specific job function, itself. To put it a little more abstract than 'kicking the dog', much of the work we do is in service purely of the bottom line - for products no one demands or needs, that solve no real human needs (of which there are MANY unmet needs), but generate maximum profit often at the expense of others or our collective future. Some work that centers purely around controlling capital serves virtually no real human function and has no actual output except profit (think banking, real estate, etc). Maybe I'm in the minority but these thoughts weigh heavily on me and make it much hard to make myself 'work', regardless of compensation. We keep at it because it's not feasible or enjoyable to be low-income in the world we live in, but we feel the urge that we should be doing something else. I call that a form of burnout.

seanp2k2 9y ago
This is one of my big problems with the idea of money being so separated from actual good these days. It also creates huge wealth gaps, and I have no idea what could be done to re-align it. Basically, I believe that the concept of money as it exists today is deeply broken and should be aligned with something which benefits humans vs something which is required in small to moderate quantities to not suffer yet which people obsess over, collect, and seek to increase with an unrelenting fervor, despite any damage it does to society or individuals.
- Clownshoesms 9y ago
  I think we're showing our evolutionary background, in particular greed. Having our monetary system essentially controlled by powerful private interests is a disaster too.
- tim333 9y ago
  It's a tricky problem. I guess to an extent government can tax wealth accumulation that doesn't do good and fund good stuff that doesn't make money but it's hard to judge/implement.
- dnautics 9y ago
  Money is very broken currently. "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . . become 'profiteers', who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished not less than the proletariat." Doesn't that sound familiar? The quote is, ironically, by John Maynard Keynes, the very person policymakers cite to justify stealing from the poor and giving to the rich via inflation, in the name of "stability".
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > stealing from the poor and giving to the rich via inflation Inflation is a tax on assets. Isn't that the exact opposite of taking from the poor?
    - qb45 9y ago
      Inflation is a tax on money, not on all assets. It costs those who have their assets located in money. The big fish don't and beggars neither. Lower-middle would be my guess.
graphitezepp 9y ago
Yup exhausting to have this world view isn't it? And rising depression rates suggest, to me at least, that people that think this way are becoming more common.
- praneshp 9y ago
  I think the increased ability to talk about depression is a more important factor in rising depression rates. Unless the old rates had a model to factor in unreported cases.
  - theparanoid 9y ago
    Stagnation of income and living standards is probably the leading cause. It's not so great being in your 30's and barely affording to buy a house if at all.
- jansho 9y ago
  When you find yourself in this situation, it's a good idea to "zoom out" a little and get closer to nature and real people. I took long walks, trying to soak up the sun, trees, insects everything. I also walked all over the city and watched different people getting on with their lives; commuting, serving, sweeping, chatting ... and all the while paying attention to their facial expressions and language. And finally I volunteered at a school. It will bring some calm. You will also realise how envious you can be of those in poverty.
  - jgamman 9y ago
    That last sentence. Seriously?
    - Mz 9y ago
      It's probably a terrible way to frame it. Maybe a better way is to say something like "People whose lives do not revolve solely around pursuit of the almighty dollar." I would like to think there is a happy medium and that there are people who have their priorities straight and are also not poor. But there seems to be a dearth of evidence for this thing I would like to believe. It seems like those unwilling to sell their soul for money often have damn little of it. So, while I understand your reaction, I can't quite manage to feel offended at what is possibly not the best framing, but possibly not inaccurate per se either. (Edit: I am not saying everyone who has money has their priorities screwed up. I am just saying it seems to be hard to get both things right. It seems most people err on one side or the other, even if it isn't how they want to live. Those who err on the side of other priorities often seem to really struggle financially. Those who place a high priority on money often seem to do so at a personal cost that those chronically without money are loathe to make.)
thesagan 9y ago
I identify with a lot of what you write, especially about wanting to avoid hurting other people in the pursuit of profits. What has bothered me lately, very much so, is how in-the-minority I feel about this "social crisis" that I feel is occurring: hurting people/ourselves in pursuit of money that we won't personally even see. (In-the-minority from the people that surround me in my work and personal life.) I'm [finishing] working through burnout from my own consultancy that I closed down a few years ago, reloading fuel for my next heat. Meaning is so important, because after a certain income threshold the money means less and less, too. As an aside, the people I work among seems to be primo in what fuels my passion, even before getting to the work of the company mission. Always looking for camaraderie (and friendly competition) among peers and an acceptable "mission" that binds us. Good luck to you!
- Clownshoesms 9y ago
  > What has bothered me lately, very much so, is how in-the-minority I feel about this "social crisis" that I feel is occurring: hurting people/ourselves in pursuit of money that we won't personally even see. (In-the-minority from the people that surround me in my work and personal life.) A key point I think. I'm not sure it is a minority feeling, but more a case of active propoganda/cultural influence that keeps 80-90% of people complacent ("We're the good guys! This doesn't feel right, but they just told us we're the good guys! Keep working!").
- 55555 9y ago
  I wish I had advice for you but I don't. I just want to relate that it was also extremely hard on me when I had the same realization.
notfromhere 9y ago
think of how much top-tier human and financial capital is tied up in recreating photo sharing apps, let alone other banal software pursuits
- taway_1212 9y ago
  Sadly, market (profit) driven ventures usually seem incapable of making the big leaps and can only incrementally build on the status quo. It seems that a fundamental change can only be brought in by state (see ex. state funding for Silicon Valley leading to computer revolution), which will only shell out the big bucks when facing existential threats, such as war (military being a huge driver in technology, standarization, organization) or ex. epidemics. In current times, there are no imminent existential threats (solutions to global warming would require global coordination, which likely isn't going to happen), so the states mostly take a back seat and we're left with Snapchats and Ubers.
jansho 9y ago
I also identify with you. I struggled to find the venture that hits the "golden point", where it solves a genuine problem, doesn't disrupt to the point of messing up lives, is beautiful (by virtue of having an arty-farty personality) ... and all that plus maximum but entirely ethical profits. I think I found it: edtech. Edtech is a notoriously hard one to crack, and it's a long game. Fortunately I've always enjoyed working with children and philosophising about the best ways to teach and learn. The bad news: most edtech are flops. Still, it adds a bit of meaning to the everyday hum-drum.
- Danihan 9y ago
  The unfortunate reality is that a lot of success boils down to IQ (and some other metrics of mental acuity,) which is mostly hereditary or imprinted, so that's depressing for a lot of people in education who started off wide-eyed and optimistic. Also, an efficient, nationwide online schooling system (CAVA in California as an example,) would be the end of something like 90% of the teachers in the country. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Who even knows... Everything has trade-offs.
  - jansho 9y ago
    Hmm my edtech aims for global literacy; so a reading programme for ESL kids who may be disadvantaged enough to only have access to a smartphone. So that at least frees me from that glum thought of IQ vs Nurture tug-o-war. While I'm at it, I might as well advertise: --------- If anyone is interested to join my adventure please feel free to contact me via my profile. --------- Someone with good tech skills will especially be welcomed, as I'm a bit rusty, and plus it's more enjoyable to make pictures and courses. I'm based in the UK but I'm not fussy about having an online collaborator :)
    - Mz 9y ago
      Hi there. You can come join us on the "light" side at business bootstrappers. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/business-bootstrappers https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/business-bootstrappe...
dvtv75 9y ago
Interestingly, I've been thinking very much along these lines with regard to my present job. It occurs to me that the actual reason for my current role is to fleece the taxpayer of as much public funding as possible, and in about nine hours I'll be working a day just to fleece the city of property taxpayer's money. A quick bit of arithmetic reveals that we charge a significant amount ($50k+) for what we do, but put <10% of that back into the final product. (I can only account for about 8% of it.) Nobody needs what we do. If my workplace collapsed in an earthquake, nobody would notice. Most people don't even know we exist, and are very surprised that such a facility exists here. As you say, these thoughts have a serious impact on me. Every time we have a new hire I urge them to join the union and to use the place like it's a one-night stand. I would do almost anything I could find, but there is little appropriate work for me.
- 5_minutes 9y ago
  What organisation really produces something meaningful? Perhaps most of it is different shades of fluff. For example many government and institutional project assignments are a complete waste of time and money to begin with. Quite often they're a checkbox on some bureaucrat's desk. Some perfect examples of this is you can find when looking at the (technical) tenders the European Commission issues. Pick your (tech) topic and be sure find a few million being thrown at some research projects that are never being utilised, or of which the outcome literally doesn't matter. All being funded with taxpayer's money. There are hundreds of these projects being funded every year, and they are a complete waste of money. While there are people dying on boats to get into the EU, they are funding machine learning and AI research projects that would be laughably outdated 3 years ago. However, if one company doesn't pick it up, another one will. It is a whole ecosystem of its own of companies and organisations applying for useless EU projects. Perhaps the problem is not the companies fulfilling these assignments but rather the governments that issue them in the first place. Or the general public that lets their taxpayers money get wasted like that in the first place.

by jly 9y ago

seanp2k2 9y ago

This is one of my big problems with the idea of money being so separated from actual good these days. It also creates huge wealth gaps, and I have no idea what could be done to re-align it. Basically, I believe that the concept of money as it exists today is deeply broken and should be aligned with something which benefits humans vs something which is required in small to moderate quantities to not suffer yet which people obsess over, collect, and seek to increase with an unrelenting fervor, despite any damage it does to society or individuals.

Clownshoesms 9y ago
I think we're showing our evolutionary background, in particular greed. Having our monetary system essentially controlled by powerful private interests is a disaster too.
tim333 9y ago
It's a tricky problem. I guess to an extent government can tax wealth accumulation that doesn't do good and fund good stuff that doesn't make money but it's hard to judge/implement.
dnautics 9y ago
Money is very broken currently. "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . . become 'profiteers', who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished not less than the proletariat." Doesn't that sound familiar? The quote is, ironically, by John Maynard Keynes, the very person policymakers cite to justify stealing from the poor and giving to the rich via inflation, in the name of "stability".
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > stealing from the poor and giving to the rich via inflation Inflation is a tax on assets. Isn't that the exact opposite of taking from the poor?
  - qb45 9y ago
    Inflation is a tax on money, not on all assets. It costs those who have their assets located in money. The big fish don't and beggars neither. Lower-middle would be my guess.

graphitezepp 9y ago

Yup exhausting to have this world view isn't it? And rising depression rates suggest, to me at least, that people that think this way are becoming more common.

praneshp 9y ago
I think the increased ability to talk about depression is a more important factor in rising depression rates. Unless the old rates had a model to factor in unreported cases.
- theparanoid 9y ago
  Stagnation of income and living standards is probably the leading cause. It's not so great being in your 30's and barely affording to buy a house if at all.
jansho 9y ago
When you find yourself in this situation, it's a good idea to "zoom out" a little and get closer to nature and real people. I took long walks, trying to soak up the sun, trees, insects everything. I also walked all over the city and watched different people getting on with their lives; commuting, serving, sweeping, chatting ... and all the while paying attention to their facial expressions and language. And finally I volunteered at a school. It will bring some calm. You will also realise how envious you can be of those in poverty.
- jgamman 9y ago
  That last sentence. Seriously?
  - Mz 9y ago
    It's probably a terrible way to frame it. Maybe a better way is to say something like "People whose lives do not revolve solely around pursuit of the almighty dollar." I would like to think there is a happy medium and that there are people who have their priorities straight and are also not poor. But there seems to be a dearth of evidence for this thing I would like to believe. It seems like those unwilling to sell their soul for money often have damn little of it. So, while I understand your reaction, I can't quite manage to feel offended at what is possibly not the best framing, but possibly not inaccurate per se either. (Edit: I am not saying everyone who has money has their priorities screwed up. I am just saying it seems to be hard to get both things right. It seems most people err on one side or the other, even if it isn't how they want to live. Those who err on the side of other priorities often seem to really struggle financially. Those who place a high priority on money often seem to do so at a personal cost that those chronically without money are loathe to make.)

thesagan 9y ago

I identify with a lot of what you write, especially about wanting to avoid hurting other people in the pursuit of profits. What has bothered me lately, very much so, is how in-the-minority I feel about this "social crisis" that I feel is occurring: hurting people/ourselves in pursuit of money that we won't personally even see. (In-the-minority from the people that surround me in my work and personal life.) I'm [finishing] working through burnout from my own consultancy that I closed down a few years ago, reloading fuel for my next heat. Meaning is so important, because after a certain income threshold the money means less and less, too. As an aside, the people I work among seems to be primo in what fuels my passion, even before getting to the work of the company mission. Always looking for camaraderie (and friendly competition) among peers and an acceptable "mission" that binds us. Good luck to you!

Clownshoesms 9y ago
> What has bothered me lately, very much so, is how in-the-minority I feel about this "social crisis" that I feel is occurring: hurting people/ourselves in pursuit of money that we won't personally even see. (In-the-minority from the people that surround me in my work and personal life.) A key point I think. I'm not sure it is a minority feeling, but more a case of active propoganda/cultural influence that keeps 80-90% of people complacent ("We're the good guys! This doesn't feel right, but they just told us we're the good guys! Keep working!").
55555 9y ago
I wish I had advice for you but I don't. I just want to relate that it was also extremely hard on me when I had the same realization.

notfromhere 9y ago

think of how much top-tier human and financial capital is tied up in recreating photo sharing apps, let alone other banal software pursuits

taway_1212 9y ago
Sadly, market (profit) driven ventures usually seem incapable of making the big leaps and can only incrementally build on the status quo. It seems that a fundamental change can only be brought in by state (see ex. state funding for Silicon Valley leading to computer revolution), which will only shell out the big bucks when facing existential threats, such as war (military being a huge driver in technology, standarization, organization) or ex. epidemics. In current times, there are no imminent existential threats (solutions to global warming would require global coordination, which likely isn't going to happen), so the states mostly take a back seat and we're left with Snapchats and Ubers.

jansho 9y ago

I also identify with you. I struggled to find the venture that hits the "golden point", where it solves a genuine problem, doesn't disrupt to the point of messing up lives, is beautiful (by virtue of having an arty-farty personality) ... and all that plus maximum but entirely ethical profits. I think I found it: edtech. Edtech is a notoriously hard one to crack, and it's a long game. Fortunately I've always enjoyed working with children and philosophising about the best ways to teach and learn. The bad news: most edtech are flops. Still, it adds a bit of meaning to the everyday hum-drum.

Danihan 9y ago
The unfortunate reality is that a lot of success boils down to IQ (and some other metrics of mental acuity,) which is mostly hereditary or imprinted, so that's depressing for a lot of people in education who started off wide-eyed and optimistic. Also, an efficient, nationwide online schooling system (CAVA in California as an example,) would be the end of something like 90% of the teachers in the country. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Who even knows... Everything has trade-offs.
- jansho 9y ago
  Hmm my edtech aims for global literacy; so a reading programme for ESL kids who may be disadvantaged enough to only have access to a smartphone. So that at least frees me from that glum thought of IQ vs Nurture tug-o-war. While I'm at it, I might as well advertise: --------- If anyone is interested to join my adventure please feel free to contact me via my profile. --------- Someone with good tech skills will especially be welcomed, as I'm a bit rusty, and plus it's more enjoyable to make pictures and courses. I'm based in the UK but I'm not fussy about having an online collaborator :)
  - Mz 9y ago
    Hi there. You can come join us on the "light" side at business bootstrappers. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/business-bootstrappers https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/business-bootstrappe...

dvtv75 9y ago

Interestingly, I've been thinking very much along these lines with regard to my present job. It occurs to me that the actual reason for my current role is to fleece the taxpayer of as much public funding as possible, and in about nine hours I'll be working a day just to fleece the city of property taxpayer's money. A quick bit of arithmetic reveals that we charge a significant amount ($50k+) for what we do, but put <10% of that back into the final product. (I can only account for about 8% of it.) Nobody needs what we do. If my workplace collapsed in an earthquake, nobody would notice. Most people don't even know we exist, and are very surprised that such a facility exists here. As you say, these thoughts have a serious impact on me. Every time we have a new hire I urge them to join the union and to use the place like it's a one-night stand. I would do almost anything I could find, but there is little appropriate work for me.

5_minutes 9y ago
What organisation really produces something meaningful? Perhaps most of it is different shades of fluff. For example many government and institutional project assignments are a complete waste of time and money to begin with. Quite often they're a checkbox on some bureaucrat's desk. Some perfect examples of this is you can find when looking at the (technical) tenders the European Commission issues. Pick your (tech) topic and be sure find a few million being thrown at some research projects that are never being utilised, or of which the outcome literally doesn't matter. All being funded with taxpayer's money. There are hundreds of these projects being funded every year, and they are a complete waste of money. While there are people dying on boats to get into the EU, they are funding machine learning and AI research projects that would be laughably outdated 3 years ago. However, if one company doesn't pick it up, another one will. It is a whole ecosystem of its own of companies and organisations applying for useless EU projects. Perhaps the problem is not the companies fulfilling these assignments but rather the governments that issue them in the first place. Or the general public that lets their taxpayers money get wasted like that in the first place.