5 ms·
No, it's sad in the same sense gigahours wasted in front of TVs are sad.
by blfr 8y ago
No, it's sad in the same sense gigahours wasted in front of TVs are sad.
- chriswarbo 8y agoI get the sentiment, but "bullshit jobs" are also a waste of time (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs ); those also have the same downsides as many jobs, like stress, abusive managers, etc. There are also many jobs which are actively harmful to society and/or the environment (e.g. cold calling), where it would be better for everyone if those workers could just watch TV instead. I think this is one of those areas that can't be solved by deduction, since there are valid arguments pushing both ways. It needs measurements, observations and experiments to see what the relative impact of those arguments are.
- blfr 8y agoBullshit jobs problem is entirely caused by labour being too cheap in turn caused by the only now industrializing third world. Same with poor working conditions. If the corporations had to pay the full cost of employing people without the option to subsidize it witch cheap Chinese labour, they would long had to get rid of most bullshit jobs (some inefficiency is of course unavoidable) and make work much better organized.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoNo. Bullshit jobs are the consequence of markets being short-sighted optimization systems, with goals only partially aligned with human values. It's quite easy to make money in ways other than delivering socially valuable things; in fact, many of the most profitable jobs and endeavours are precisely that.
- hoaw 8y agoI would say those are two different things, but they are generally both bullshit. One is menial jobs with no future, essentially lost potential. The other is taking a position in something rather than do something, like middle managers. I know it isn't popular to talk about, but they are both a factor of inequality. You need to have economic equality to have distinction in merit. Otherwise merit for all intents an purposes comes second to economic success or failure. Of course that isn't absolute. But still a huge factor.
- andrepd 8y agoI just want to say you condensed much of my thoughts about capitalism in a very short couple sentences. I'm stealing that.
- sridca 8y agoHave you ever stopped to think where this 'watching TV is wasting time' belief originates from?
- blfr 8y agoMine? From exposure (to TV).
- FiveSquared25 8y agoThe Internet and parents ;). However, people neeed to relax, espically with the overstressed and overworked condition of the Western World.
- hombre_fatal 8y agoFrom the lack of fulfillment it gives most people, and thus the regret as they spend more time on it.
- mikekchar 8y agoI watch a small amount of TV (about 30-60 minutes a day) and virtually all of it is useful. I use it as Japanese language training. Conversely I spend waaay too much time reading HN. Some of that time is useful, but I have to admit that most of it is not. For the average person, though, I think it's probably true that most of their time watching TV is not useful to them (and may even be detrimental). But probably some of it is useful (for stress relief if nothing else).
- sridca 8y agoSo my question was actually rhetorical. The point I was hoping to bring to the discussion is the fact that nearly all of our value-preferences (here, the value of time spent on various activities) come from social conditioning[1]. In this particular scenario it could well be the case that this particular value-preference (the belief that watching TV is wasteful) comes from the work ethic (as in 'working' is useful, and 'leisure' is wasteful). There is no autonomous thinking in all of this and yet we claim to be living in an individualistic society. Doesn't that make anyone pause? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning