I think he's talking about jobs where this is arguable (though never entirely provable) from any perspective: employee, employer or consumer.
What is the point of FMCG marketing people? Do they really serve a purpose in society or do they just funnel funds from the competitive process (which as a whole might be productive) into different hands, including their own. There are some positive externalities like television, but that kind of incidental value is hard to find meaning in.
How about all the lawyers playing zero sum games? Social media people for office supply companies? Paparazzi? Are reward programs offering blenders in exchange for credit card miles really necessary?
I think the point he's making is somewhat valid, especially from a personal intuitive perspective. The wider question is can society work differently? Can we trade work for leisure? Can we find self definitions and motivation outside of work?
Leisure doesn't have to be indulgent. It simply gives a lot more possibilities. If you could work on any project or interest or hobby you wanted to right now, what would you work on? If you could learn any new thing you wanted, what would you learn about? Any family, friends, neighbors, or others going through a hard time right now, how would you like to help them? This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching kids in schools too, about the possibilities of free time. It can be about a lot more than just recovering from the exhaustion of work.
I think we might be talking about different things. My understanding of this articles is:
(A) A lot of work is bullshit from either a 'gives your life meaning' or a 'is useful to the world' perspective. (B) Everyone working full time is such a foundational part of our society that we don't know how to change it without breaking the world. Work is our identity, our drive to get good grades in preschool, the way money is distributed in society, a politically stabilizing force, etc.
You're talking about what we could do if we lived in that world.
In the US, what about a state-level constitutional amendment lowering full-time hours from 40 to 35? It just seems to me that public support isn't even there right now for something like that, but that support is necessary for getting there.
A basic income, even a very low one, would be another way to get there. We could do away with the idea of full-time / salaried work entirely, and everyone is just part-time hourly. People could work enough hours just for subsistence, or more up to whatever comfort or consumption level fits their desired lifestyle.
If a person believes their paying job is at the core of who they are, they are either very lucky (working a dream job), or very unlucky (overworked, unfulfilled, and/or indoctrinated). All people, not just the wealthy or beautiful or lucky, deserve as much freedom and autonomy as their society can provide to them. Every person deserves a chance to become a great thinker, visionary, artist, scientist, craftsperson, and you can't do those things without plenty of free time to explore and experiment.
Wanting a better world and believing it's possible is the first step to getting there.
What is the point of FMCG marketing people? Do they really serve a purpose in society or do they just funnel funds from the competitive process (which as a whole might be productive) into different hands, including their own. There are some positive externalities like television, but that kind of incidental value is hard to find meaning in.
How about all the lawyers playing zero sum games? Social media people for office supply companies? Paparazzi? Are reward programs offering blenders in exchange for credit card miles really necessary?
I think the point he's making is somewhat valid, especially from a personal intuitive perspective. The wider question is can society work differently? Can we trade work for leisure? Can we find self definitions and motivation outside of work?