Chapter 36.
“The great secret of joy is to put ones heart into every little thing one does.”
— Thich Nhat Hanh
The Myth of the Job
“Find a job.” It’s a directive so ingrained in our society that it barely registers as a question. Yet what if the very concept of a job needs a radical re-evaluation? The pursuit of employment is often presented as a straightforward path to economic security. But this narrative obscures a complex and often troubling reality. The current landscape of work is riddled with oppressive technologies and a system ripe for exploitation. Let us delve into the complexities of modern work. We explore its historical context, inherent inequalities and the potential for a more democratic and fulfilling future.
A portion of modern employment is unfulfilling and utterly pointless. Many people are trapped in roles they themselves recognise as unnecessary. They contribute nothing of value to society while experiencing profound psychological violence. The existence of such roles suggests they often serve the interests of those in power. They act as a means to inflate corporate structures. They solidify managerial control. They absorb surplus labour in ways that perpetuate the existing distribution of wealth. This phenomenon has implications for our understanding of work, value and the structure of our economy.
The extreme income inequality that often characterises societies with a strong emphasis on traditional employment is associated with a wide range of negative social outcomes. These include poorer health, increased crime and lower levels of trust. This inequality is often baked into the structure of jobs themselves. The more obviously ones work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.
The Erosion of Worker Autonomy
Technological advancements, far from liberating workers, are often used to control and exploit them. The use of oppressive technologies exposes the ways in which corporations collect and utilise employee data without consent. This creates a power imbalance that erodes worker autonomy and dignity. It turns the workplace into a site of constant monitoring.
This erosion of autonomy is not a new phenomenon. The very structure of wage labour alienates workers from the products of their labour. The challenges in the modern workplace are not solely the result of individual decisions. They are shaped by a system driven by a narrow focus on accumulation and concentration of power.
A crucial point is that not all companies operate solely under this narrow focus. A body of evidence suggests that businesses that thrive in the long term are those that recognise financial and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive. These organisations demonstrate that economic performance can go hand in hand with a broader commitment to stakeholder well-being and a more equitable distribution of value.
The Flaws of Hierarchy
The promoted to the point of incompetence phenomenon illustrates the flaws in traditional hierarchical structures. Employees are often promoted based on success in their current roles, even if those skills do not translate to higher level positions.
No organisational model is entirely immune to the human tendency this identifies. Democratic companies, however, possess structural advantages that can mitigate its effects. Unlike rigid hierarchies that push for endless vertical ascent, these organisations often feature flatter structures. They encourage broader skill development. With fewer rungs to climb into a position of incompetence, individuals are more often valued for a diverse array of skills. The transparent nature and peer accountability in worker owned firms mean direct feedback is more prevalent. This makes it harder for individuals to remain in roles where they are underperforming. Promotion, when it occurs, tends to be less about a permanent ascent to a position of authority. It is more about taking on new responsibilities. This also suggests that managers transitioning from traditional backgrounds may require specific training in participatory leadership.
Beyond the Binary: Hybrid Models
Beyond the fully democratic model, exploring hybrid organisational structures is valuable. These models blend elements of traditional companies with principles of employee ownership and democratic participation. This approach offers a pathway for existing businesses to transition towards greater worker involvement without a complete overhaul.
For large, established companies, a full shift to a worker cooperative might be too disruptive. Hybrid models allow for a more gradual adoption of democratic principles. These include introducing employee stock ownership plans or implementing participatory budgeting. These structures often retain easier access to external capital compared to pure worker cooperatives. These can sometimes face challenges in attracting traditional investors. Introducing elements of ownership and voice can significantly boost employee morale and productivity. It fosters a more engaged workforce. However, the primary challenge lies in balancing the influence of traditional shareholders with the newly empowered employee voice.
The separation of ownership and control in modern corporations creates an accountability problem. This lack of accountability can create environments where meaningless roles and the flaws of hierarchy are encouraged. Those in power prioritise maintaining control.
The Rise of the Precariat
The increasing precarity of work has also given rise to a new social class: the precariat. This group is defined by its instability and lack of predictable employment. This downward pressure on wages stands in opposition to the requirement for wages to be viable. Wages must provide workers with sufficient income to meet their basic needs. Thus, while the logic of rentier capitalism pushes towards wage suppression for profit, a body of thought highlights the need for wages to be viable.
The current state of jobs is a complex one. From the proliferation of meaningless roles to inequalities and the erosion of worker autonomy, the traditional model of employment is increasingly failing to meet the needs of both individuals and society. The alternative of democratic companies offers a vision for a more just and fulfilling future of work.
The Dilemma of Money or Mission
The reality is that democratic and empowering work environments are still the exception, not the rule. Many individuals are left to weigh their options within a constrained framework. The choice between money or mission often becomes a dilemma between immediate survival and the pragmatic pursuit of financial stability. This is a personal question with far reaching societal implications. In a world shaped by economic precarity, individuals are confronted with a cost benefit analysis. They must choose between pursuing financial gain and fulfilling a direct mission.
On one hand, the earning to give philosophy proposes that by securing a highly remunerative position, even one that might be personally unfulfilling, an individual can generate substantial capital. They can then donate this to highly effective charities. The logic here is that a larger sum of money, strategically deployed, can create a greater positive impact than direct engagement in a lower paid do good role. This perspective highlights the leverage that financial resources can provide. However, this path is not without its personal and ethical costs. Many high paying roles are perceived as meaningless or harmful. They lead to profound psychological violence for those trapped within them. Such positions can erode personal well-being. This makes the pursuit of money at the expense of purpose unsustainable.
Conversely, the direct impact approach advocates for choosing a less well paid job that inherently contributes to social good. This path offers intrinsic fulfilment. Ones daily work directly aligns with personal values. Roles within charities, public service or democratic companies offer tangible, direct contributions to a more just and sustainable society. A challenge in this approach lies in the economic viability of such roles. Many vital do good jobs are underpaid. This leads to financial precarity.
Navigating the Dilemma
To help navigate this dilemma, consider these questions to gain clarity on what path aligns best with your circumstances:
What truly motivates you in your professional life? Is it financial security, direct impact, personal fulfilment, the pursuit of status or a combination? How would you rank these in importance?
What kind of good do you most want to achieve in the world? Is it alleviating poverty, environmental protection, social justice or something else that resonates with you?
How important is it for your daily work to align directly with your values? Can you comfortably separate your professional contributions from your personal purpose, or do they need to be deeply integrated?
What is your personal, authentic definition of success in a career, one that goes beyond just income level or a job title?
What is your financial breaking point or viable wage? What is the minimum income you need to meet your basic needs and live without undue financial stress, and perhaps save for the future?
What are the potential ethical costs of a high paying job in an industry you might not fully endorse? How comfortable are you with that association, even if your intent is to donate your earnings?
Conversely, what specific do good roles or sectors genuinely excite you? What is the typical income for these mission driven roles, and how does that compare to your viable wage?
Considering your approximately 80,000 hours of career time, how do you want to spend the majority of your waking hours?
What are your unique skills? How can you best leverage these to create the greatest positive difference, whether through earning to give or through direct engagement in a mission driven role?
What is your personal risk tolerance for pursuing unconventional career paths? Are you open to exploring alternative business structures or potentially moving between different sectors to find your ideal balance?
A Call for Moral Ambition
The recurring historical pattern where periods of moral decline and extreme inequality are met by countercultural movements, often initiated by privileged individuals choosing to act for the greater good, is precisely what gives hope.
In the US, one political party appears to be in a state of moral collapse. When considering how to raise children, it feels essentially the opposite of how many people in power are behaving. Society has faced similar predicaments before. History offers compelling examples of how they were overcome.
When considering the slogan Make a country Great Again, its interpretation depends on our historical reference point. As an advocate for tax fairness, it is inequitable that billionaires globally often have lower effective tax rates than working and middle class people. This can be fixed. We can point to historical examples from the 1950s and 1960s where a more reasonable system of taxation existed. This system importantly also coincided with higher growth rates. Thus, seeking inspiration from the past to Make a country Great Again is a project with immense hope.
Individuals can, and should, strive for a better, more just future by learning from those who dared to make a difference before them, and ultimately succeed.
Next Chapter: Emotional & Mental Resilience: Reclaimed
Bibliography
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C., The Modern Corporation and Private Property, 1932
Bregman, R., Moral Ambition: Stop Wasting Your Talent and Start Making a Difference, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2025
Bregman, R., Humankind: A Hopeful History, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020
Bregman, R., Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World, Little, Brown and Company, 2017
Ellerman, D., Neo-Abolitionism: Abolishing Human Rentals in Favor of Workplace Democracy, Rowman & Littlefield, 1990
Freeman, R. E., Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, 1984
Graeber, D., Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, Simon & Schuster, 2018
Harari, Y. N., Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Harper, 2014
Harari, Y. N., Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Harper, 2016
Hirsch, D., The Living Wage, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2013
Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, 1936
Logue, J., & Bornstein, S., The Case for Employee Ownership, George Mason University Press, 2016
MacAskill, W., Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, Random House, 2015
Peter, L. J., & Hull, R., The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, William Morrow, 1969
Standing, G., The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, Bloomsbury Academic, 2011
Standing, G., The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay, Zed Books, 2014
Varoufakis, Y., Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism, Melville House, 2021
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E., The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Allen Lane, 2009
Witowsky, P., We Can Govern Ourselves: A Handbook on Workplace Democracy, Self-published, 2023
Wright, E. O., Envisioning Real Utopias, Verso, 2010
Zuboff, S., The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, PublicAffairs, 2019