Chapter 29.
“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. This chapter delves into the complexities of modern work, exploring its historical context, inherent inequalities, and the potential for a more democratic and fulfilling future.
As David Graeber argues in his work, Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, a portion of modern employment is unfulfilling and utterly pointless. He contends that many people are trapped in roles they themselves recognise as unnecessary, contributing nothing of value to society while experiencing what he terms “profound psychological violence.” The existence of such roles suggests they often serve the interests of those in power, acting as a means to inflate corporate structures, solidify managerial control, or absorb surplus labour in ways that perpetuate the existing distribution of wealth. Graeber meticulously builds his case by categorising these “bullshit jobs,” from “flunkies” who exist to make others feel important, to “goons” who engage in deceptive practices. He challenges the core assumption of capitalist efficiency, highlighting how technological advancements have, in many cases, led to the proliferation of meaningless jobs instead of a shorter workweek.
This phenomenon has implications for our understanding of work, value, and the structure of our economy. As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett demonstrate in The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, 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, including poorer health, increased crime, and lower levels of trust. This inequality is often baked into the structure of jobs themselves, where, as Graeber observes, “the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.”
Technological advancements, far from liberating workers, are often used to control and exploit them. The use of “oppressive technologies like AI-powered cameras,” as illustrated by Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, exposes the ways in which corporations collect and utilise employee data without consent. This “surveillance capitalism” creates a power imbalance that erodes worker autonomy and dignity, turning 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. These insights remain relevant in the modern workplace, where the precarity of work and the pressure to be “productive” often leave workers feeling like cogs in a machine. 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, championed by thinkers such as R. Edward Freeman with his Stakeholder Theory, 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 “promoted to the point of incompetence” phenomenon, known as the Peter Principle, also illustrates the flaws in traditional hierarchical structures. As Laurence J. Peter outlined, employees are often promoted based on success in their current roles, even if those skills don’t translate to higher-level positions.
No organisational model is entirely immune to the human tendency the Peter Principle 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, encouraging 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, making 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 and more about taking on new responsibilities. This also suggests that managers transitioning from traditional backgrounds may require specific training in participatory leadership.
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, such as introducing employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) or implementing participatory budgeting. These structures often retain easier access to external capital compared to pure worker cooperatives, which can sometimes face challenges in attracting traditional investors. Introducing elements of ownership and voice can significantly boost employee morale and productivity, fostering a more engaged workforce. However, the primary challenge lies in balancing the influence of traditional shareholders with the newly empowered employee voice.
The authors Adolph A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means, in their work The Modern Corporation and Private Property, identified the separation of ownership and control in modern corporations. They argued that managers, rather than owners, wielded power, creating an accountability problem. This lack of accountability can create environments where “bullshit jobs” and the Peter Principle are encouraged, as those in power prioritise maintaining control. The increasing precarity of work has also given rise to a new social class: the precariat. Guy Standing, in his book The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, argues that 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—to provide workers with sufficient income to meet their basic needs. The work of Donald Hirsch on “The Living Wage” and John Maynard Keynes’s work on aggregate demand further supports the need for adequate wages. The extensive work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level provides evidence for the societal benefits of reduced income inequality. Standing’s analysis in The Precariat also underscores the insecurity faced by a growing segment of the UK workforce due to low and unstable wages. 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. Harari, in Sapiens and Homo Deus, projects a more disruptive future for work, where AI and automation could displace a vast number of jobs, creating a class of individuals deemed economically ‘useless’. This raises questions about how societies will provide for and integrate individuals in a world where traditional employment may become scarce.
David Ellerman argues against the traditional “employer-employee” relationship, which he sees as unjust. His work, including Neo-Abolitionism, advocates for a shift towards worker ownership and democratic control of enterprises. Patrik Witowsky’s We Can Govern Ourselves builds on this by advocating for open-source organisational models. He offers a vision: democratic companies, where workers have a say in how the business is run. The ideas of Rutger Bregman in Utopia for Realists further contribute to this discourse by challenging the necessity of long working hours and advocating for a universal basic income. Bregman’s work prompts a re-evaluation of the purpose of work. As John Logue and Stephanie Bornstein argue in The Case for Employee Ownership, employee-owned companies tend to be more productive and resilient. A quote from Ronald Reagan’s speech in 1987 states, ‘I can’t help but believe that in the future we will see…an increasing trend toward the next logical step, employee ownership. It is a path that befits a free people.’ Democratic companies offer an antidote to the problems of inequality and alienation. As Erik Olin Wright argues in Envisioning Real Utopias, these alternative models represent pathways towards a more humane and sustainable future. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain stands as a testament to the potential of this model.
The transition to a more democratic economy will not be easy. As Yanis Varoufakis argues in Technofeudalism, the current system is entrenched, and those in power have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The potential rewards of such a transformation are immense. The current state of jobs is a complex one. From the proliferation of “bullshit jobs” 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. By empowering workers and prioritising shared ownership, we can create a world where everyone has the opportunity to contribute their skills in a meaningful way. It is time to move beyond the narrow confines of “finding a job” and embrace a more radical and transformative vision of what work can and should be.
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 between pursuing financial gain and fulfilling a direct mission. This is a practical dilemma for individuals navigating their careers.
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 to then donate 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, championed by William MacAskill in Doing Good Better, highlights the leverage that financial resources can provide. However, this path is not without its personal and ethical costs. As David Graeber detailed in Bullshit Jobs, many high-paying roles are perceived as meaningless or harmful, leading to “profound psychological violence” for those trapped within them. Such positions can erode personal well-being, making 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, as one’s 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. As Patrik Witowsky argues in We Can Govern Ourselves, these democratic structures inherently do good by empowering workers. A challenge in this approach lies in the economic viability of such roles. Donald Hirsch’s research on “The Living Wage” demonstrates that many vital “do-good” jobs are underpaid, leading to financial precarity. This contradicts the chapter’s earlier assertion that work should provide a decent standard of living. Rutger Bregman’s work, Moral Ambition, champions this direct-impact pathway, urging individuals to leverage their skills to address the world’s biggest problems. Ultimately, the choice hinges on a personal weighing of these benefits and costs, reflecting individual values and financial security requirements.
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’s 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’s 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?
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 Bregman hope. His new book calls for a similar countercultural movement today, especially as current events feel increasingly dark and blatant immorality is evident. In the US, the Republican party appears to be in a state of moral collapse. As a parent of two young children, he finds that the distinction is no longer simply “left versus right.” When considering how he wants to raise his kids, he feels it’s essentially the opposite of how many people in power are behaving—so nasty and constantly acting like bullies. Society has faced similar predicaments before, and history offers compelling examples of how they were overcome. When considering the slogan “Make America Great Again,” Bregman suggests its interpretation depends on one’s historical reference point. As an advocate for tax fairness, Bregman finds it inequitable that billionaires globally often have lower effective tax rates than working and middle-class people. He firmly believes this can be fixed, pointing to historical examples from the 1950s and 1960s where a more reasonable system of taxation existed, which importantly, also coincided with higher growth rates. Thus, seeking inspiration from the past to “Make America Great Again” is a project he sees immense hope in, aligning with the core message of “Moral Ambition” that 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: Beyond the Echo-Chamber: Solving Complex Issues
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