What was it all about - really?

[Dave2002]

I suspect that several of us who read and post here are proceeding on the downward slopes.

Some of us have worked - perhaps most of us. I always felt that work was over-rated - but then it has been suggested that I didn't do any. Some people thought I didn't do anything - " all you do is sit there and read". Sometimes "all you do is talk to others and drink coffee". It took me many years before I realised that reading could legitimately be considered to be working, and that interacting with others and exchanging ideas could also be considered as valuable activity. I certainly never believed in 9 to 5 working, or "putting the hours in", but if I felt something was worth doing I'd work round the clock to achieve it. I never felt that people should be rewarded just for attendance.

In my own life (so far) I have experienced failure, disappointments, and also a number of successes and the thrill of achievement. I am sad (but not very) that I didn't win a Nobel Prize - my aspirations in that direction disappeared many years ago as I realised it was very unlikely - but I did have that aspiration once. Before that I wanted to be a train driver - or so I told people when I was very young. I know others who had aspirations - one wanted to be an astronaut, but life didn't work out that way.

Looking back I wonder whether work was ever really a sensible way to spend my (or anyone else's) time - though obviously there are some things and people for which/whom we should be very grateful. Doctors, nurses, and also those people who keep our water supplies and sewage systems going, and also our electricity and other infrastructure services. Teachers and social workers - and many others in our societies do have valuable roles, and even some in what are considered as mundane jobs.

Some of the work I did can now be done much faster by machines - my first job was adding up columns of 4 digit or more numbers - typically about 40-50 of those. My first attempt took about 30 minutes, but after practice I could do it in about a minute. It would take longer to enter the data into a computer using a keyboard than I could add the numbers up - but I expect that in the future an OCR system will do that - if such a system doesn't already exist.

I did work on computer projects which were successful, but some of that work which sometimes took a year or so to fruition can now be done in a fraction of that time.

So - overall - what was it about?

Perhaps others can comment or share experiences.

[MrGongGong]

I never felt that people should be rewarded just for attendance.

(i'm up against an editing deadline so a brief comment!)

I find that there is a huge difference in being paid for doing "the thing" (which might be writing an opera or making a wall) and being paid "for hours".

[Dave2002]

(i'm up against an editing deadline so a brief comment!)

I find that there is a huge difference in being paid for doing "the thing" (which might be writing an opera or making a wall) and being paid "for hours".

Good luck with that. Come back when you've got further on.

[french frank]

Good luck with that. Come back when you've got further on.

How much of the essentials to (modern) life depend on people 'doing work' - paid or unpaid?

[Lat-Literal]

This is a very big topic and sometimes it is best not to dwell.

I come at it from the angle of not being partnered or having had a family. That of itself was disappointing. It was partially my character and partially other people. A single child who rightly or wrongly is very happy with his parents does not necessarily find the prospect of other options better or workable. It was also the times. I walked down the street the other day counting the number of people I had known who were long term single or divorced. The figures are astonishing and I am not now persuaded that liberalism in the 1960s led to greater things than humdrum and frustrated commitments for life although it was useful for avoiding or leaving abusive relationships. With this in mind, employment for me might have been the fulfilment. It wasn't. The overwhelming memory of it is one of oppression. That came in the main from managers who were married and had offspring but it needn't have done. Whatever the media wants, we can end any debate about those of working class vs middle class origins or gender or any other category one can care to name. The principal problem in this country is the self-serving professional class. It has been for all of my adult life and any sense in society of upward mobility or diversity has done nothing to improve it. Quite the opposite. I know in my mid fifties that I had to get out of bed each morning for one thing and one thing only. It wasn't money or in any conscious wish to survive. It was for others.

The other people were my parents. Take that a step further down and you get to the Protestant work ethic. That is underestimated in its power and the way in which it doesn't simply drive but is the drive with perhaps elements of guilt behind any notion that one wouldn't or couldn't work. It is very much more powerful than those who commit to religion, Protestantism or otherwise, and here in my case is the proof. There was never any sense of guilt around not marrying or siring grandchildren largely on account of the vibes which I absorbed. In my background, we were hovering pretty close to open talk about sex being far more cataclysmic than open talk about death and even the prospect of death. Never believe that that is just a Catholic thing as it isn't. Worse than death, though, would have been unemployment. It was the ultimate scourge, if not a cancer. That was what the Guardian and Telegraph readers in management led me into in 2010 and were then naively amazed that what came back at them from me for years was the wordy equivalent of a nuclear war.

Of course, they went out for effective containment but whenever similar things arise they are left in no uncertain terms what they are confronting. They can reduce it to an appearance of a water off a duck's back and reduce it all to a powerless bluster which it is but the cross references can be made. We all know it. The heightened sense of principle, the ability to find an acute rationality when reneged on, the sheer white heat of the emotion. Internally many were shaken to the core although luckily for all of us it is turned into an anodyne tolerance of them on my part. That doesn't mean that any of us will ever forget the days when they sent the helicopters over. To be honest I couldn't have given a toss and I still don't because I had a working class sanctimony on my side which knew that it was morally right and I still do. They knew it too which made it all the worse. I wasn't forced down. I just ultimately dismissed them as phoney and they were easily satisfied with that conclusion. That is how they choose to live. But, yes, this is the non-religious Protestant work ethic when it is liberally done over. When placed on the back foot, it says revolution won't come from me but it would come from others and sooner than you might think so for your own sakes get in line. I could speak of strange moments when an establishment strand appeared obliquely and was genuinely warm to me. We got Mrs May. Whatever you think of her, I had a part in that. They know that I am a weathervane. I was the one who insisted they at least started to talk about One Nation and the need to steer a middle course. Of course, they knew the latter anyhow but not the urgency of the first. They also know that I consistently convey that Cameron has to be the very last out of Eton otherwise they are finished and the rest of us too.

On the plus side, I think I did appreciate the getting on with the many on similar grades when there were true individuals rather than everyone as now being either corporate types or chavs. I liked the opportunities to experience in the workplace many new things whether it was at UN Geneva which could appear to epitomise a historically based international peace or leaping onto a tractor trailer at Rutland Water to see Osprey observers supporting the water industry's claims to conservation. I don't mind saying how nervous I was when briefing Ministers although I did it anyway because I had to and that the first one was Glenda Jackson who was very nice to me. So it's a mixed bag. Lots of friends at the time. A range of experience. Imagine being without partner and family and yet under a semi-religious obligation to toss burgers in McDonalds. It doesn't bear thinking about. Plus it all delayed the process of getting to know that radio and television are merely full of people who are at work themselves and increasingly make it obvious they are in the work business rather than the business of entertainment. And whereas we had a lot to do with little time and no repetition, they are stretching out four or five things and suggesting it is a good 24 hours worth. I thought that I wanted to be a media type. Now, on balance, I am content with where I was and what I did. Mostly, I see it has having been chosen for me by something truly higher.

[Dave2002]

How much of the essentials to (modern) life depend on people 'doing work' - paid or unpaid?

I think it depends what you define as “essential”. My guess is about 10-20% of working age (whatever that means) people can provide basic essentials in an organised society. Food, shelter, clothing, water, sanitation. I think Dreyfus claimed years ago that only about 5% of people were needed to do ”useful” work. Later he said he was wrong, and revised his estimate downwards. Not sure if I can find the references now - but I’ll try.

Some people really do have more significant needs - older people, ill people etc., and require more support.

That still leaves a lot of people doing “what?”, and “why?”.

[Dave2002]

At least I found out a bit more about Dreyfus - Hubert Dreyfus that is - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hube...l_intelligence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus

[Richard Barrett]

That still leaves a lot of people doing “what?”, and “why?”.

This is a valuable piece of work on the subject: https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

"In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century's end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There's every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn't happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

(...) in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one's work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it. Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it's obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It's not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.)"

[Dave2002]

This is a valuable piece of work on the subject: https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it's obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic.

A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place.

Thanks for the link.
See quote.

[Dave2002]

On the plus side, I think I did appreciate the getting on with the many on similar grades when there were true individuals rather than everyone as now being either corporate types or chavs. I liked the opportunities to experience in the workplace many new things whether it was at UN Geneva which could appear to epitomise a historically based international peace or leaping onto a tractor trailer at Rutland Water to see Osprey observers supporting the water industry's claims to conservation.

One aspect of work which seems to be very important is the social aspect - interaction with other people - building up a community. Admittedly sometimes this is with people one doesn't like, but usually it's not all like that. It may be that we prefer to interact even with people we don't like than have no interaction at all.

These factors are somewhat independent of "output" - how productive workers are. Under some circumstances output and efficiency are important, but not always. It may be that the social cohesion is actually more important than the goods or services which are being "delivered".

[Dave2002]

Maybe this - around 1 hour 38 minutes in - has some answers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bf1hjc

"It's not I'm antisocial, I'm only anti-work."

It's fun, anyway, and seems rather well done.

[Serial_Apologist]

One aspect of work which seems to be very important is the social aspect - interaction with other people - building up a community. Admittedly sometimes this is with people one doesn't like, but usually it's not all like that. It may be that we prefer to interact even with people we don't like than have no interaction at all.

In introductions outside the work environment, it is still the convention to make new acquaintances through finding out first of all what it is that the other person does - this making it easier to "place" the other person in society's judgement of what constitutes "identity". But back in the 1970s when some of us, at any rate, gave different weight to such things, identity was multiple - having a job or career not seen as necessarily the highest value in terms of ambition, but the way society was "set up" to secure compliance with its values and acceptance of their source. For myself it seemed that the top of society consisted of mostly men in charge of big companies in competition with each other, this being the one thing they had in common, apart from which they might have seemed culturally in agreement with each other, able to get along and belong to the same clubs, or at least pretend to; and it was these cultural mores Luis Bunuel satirised in his 1960s film "The Discrete Charm of the Bourgeoisie". I and people like me rejected this model as "inauthentic", and were prepared to sacrifice whatever advantages had been conferred by relatively middle class upbringing - which had at least allowed us to understand the longer words used by thinkers of the time who outlined the nature of the status quo - preferring to work in unionised jobs where there remained at least the vestiges of working class communities and the ethos embodied in them of solidarity. In the long run our vision has proved too far from realisable, the ruling classes holding all the right cards; but in my case it reshaped my thinking to the extent that understanding "the nature of the beast" we live under helps explain what makes people tick while providing perspective and a framework of principles. My opening gambit has never been "And what do you do?"

These factors are somewhat independent of "output" - how productive workers are. Under some circumstances output and efficiency are important, but not always. It may be that the social cohesion is actually more important than the goods or services which are being "delivered".

Social cohesion is on a par with delivery - I don't believe one can separate or valorise these two sides of the equation comparatively.

[Richard Barrett]

My opening gambit has never been "And what do you do?"

Nor has mine, although another reason for that is apprehension at possibly not knowing what to say next (if the answer is for example "I'm a corporate lawyer", not that I ever meet such people actually). But often it's interesting to find out about what people do. Recently I was being driven from airport to concert venue by a festival volunteer whose "real" job was as an air traffic controller. How often do you get the chance to find out all about what they do?

[Dave2002]

"What do you do?" is surely not too bad as a starter - for most people - depending on context. I suppose in the UK we could try "What do you/did you think of the weather today?" or ask about cricket scores. Re cricket scores I never know and mostly don't care - which probably tells the questioner more or less all they want to know about me. Even worse is when people ask about "the match" - and I then haven't even a clue what game or match they are talking about. Of course sometimes they ask questions like "Didn't X (insert name of cricketer or football player) do well in the match today/last night?" - a positive response can be dangerous as then they may assume that I actually know something about the subject and try to continue a discussion about other games and players, whereas a negative response seems a bit unfriendly.

Nowadays one is perhaps more likely to ask "When did you have your last hip replacement done?"

[Lat-Literal]

One aspect of work which seems to be very important is the social aspect - interaction with other people - building up a community. Admittedly sometimes this is with people one doesn't like, but usually it's not all like that. It may be that we prefer to interact even with people we don't like than have no interaction at all.

These factors are somewhat independent of "output" - how productive workers are. Under some circumstances output and efficiency are important, but not always. It may be that the social cohesion is actually more important than the goods or services which are being "delivered".

Yes although in a recent discussion I had I discovered that hot desking has put an end to much of the social aspect. There is no consistency in who people are sitting with. I found in any case that the main community revolved around people who had previously been colleagues. Say hello to that one from the late 80s era and then that one from fifteen years later. How do you know x? Oh I work with him. How do you know x? I used to work with him. Well, I never. Ha-ha-ha. That sort of thing. The kiss of death is when the lordships decide to have "a day when we get to know each other better" or suddenly remember to practice calling a unit a "family". In that situation, my experience is that most freeze up until their next holiday.