I get the sentiment, but "bullshit jobs" are also a waste of time (e.g. 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.
Bullshit 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.
No. 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.
I 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.
I 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).
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?
My point was that I don't agree with your position. I don't think that nearly all of our value-preferences come from social conditioning. That's why I countered with specific examples of values/preferences that do not come from social conditioning.
The belief that watching TV is wasteful comes from the experience of actually wasting time watching TV when one would prefer to have done something else. Why don't we do something else? That's a good question, but not the question you asked.
A better example of social conditioning is "common sense". If you ask a question and the answer is "common sense", the likelihood is that the person is simply socially conditioned to think that way. An example that I've given a talk on is that Japanese people sit down while showering. Western people stand up while showering. Explain why one is better than the other. I did this in a workshop composed of half Japanese people and half westerners. After 10 minutes I had to halt the exercise because people were close to coming to blows. It was amazing. The answer, of course, is that it doesn't matter really (apart from preference for a couple of minor details), but I was not prepared for the backlash of unthinking cultural beliefs.
Perhaps a better question to ask would be "Is it better to read a book or watch TV"? There I would agree with you that people are socially conditioned to respond with "read a book". They don't actually know why a book is better and, in fact, are unlikely to have ever thought about it in detail (and almost certainly have never looked at any studies on the matter). They just know it to be true (for various values of the word "true").
However, I think these socially conditioned preferences are not in the majority. People's preferences are actual preferences. Someone likes meat, another likes fish. You can learn to like something else and you may be pre-disposed to like something based on familiarity, but that's not social conditioning. People do think about their preferences quite a bit, even if they are influenced by others. People like pop music, not only because it is popular, but also because the genuinely like it. If you ask them what they like about a song, they can actually tell you in surprising detail. Often they like some popular songs and don't like other popular songs. That most people enjoy the same songs in a culture is not surprising -- that's familiarity working. You like what you know.
One of the reasons I responded to this message is because I think it is a big mistake to underestimate people and classify them as a kind of "sheeple". They aren't a big unthinking herd, just following the person in front of them. There is an aspect of that, yes, but it is really dangerous to imagine that this is all there is.
It's easy to convince yourself of the opposite position due to confirmation bias (there are lots of examples of social conditioning), but I recommend looking for the opposite. I think it will surprise you.
I was not talking about preferences -- if one actually "prefers" to do something over watching TV, then why not just do it (after all that's what a "preference" is) instead of doing the contrary and then lamenting about wasting time spent on that? -- rather about values instilled by social conditioning.
Maybe my 'value-preference' wording is the source of confusion. For maximum effect, here's a fuller list of words that comprehensively refers to what I was talking about: beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts, maxims, dictums, truths, factoids, philosophies, values, principles, ideals, standards, credos, doctrines, tenets, canons, morals, ethics, customs, traditions, psittacisms, superstitions, myths, legends, folklores, imaginations, divinations, visions, fantasies, chimeras, illusions, delusions, hallucinations, ...
I think I understood what you were talking about. Your question "If one actually prefers [X]... why not just do it... [rather than lament] about wasting time..." is an interesting question. I believe that people actually do this. In fact I do this. I'm doing it right now ;-)
This is not an issue of people being conditioned unthinkingly to accept that TV is a low value activity. I don't believe people believe this. I think that if you were to do a survey of people and ask the questions: "Do you believe watching TV is always a waste of time" I think overwhelmingly people would answer "no". If you ask, "Do you believe that watching TV is sometimes a waste of time" I think overwhelmingly people would answer "yes".
That's the point I was trying to make. People are making rational value judgements about their TV watching habits. Sometimes it is very valuable. Most time it is very wasteful. I think that people have very rational reasons for believing this and have actually thought it through.
As to why people do things that they believe is a waste of time? Why did you write that long list of words. Did you believe I would read it? Did you believe it would add value to the conversation? Did you believe it would add value to your life? Or did you do it without really evaluating whether or not it was a valuable thing to do?
I think these answers, if considered with introspection will answer the question you posed.
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.