Many people today feel unhappy and dissatisfied with their work. They feel like they are just working for someone else’s profit and power, without any connection to their work products. This is known as alienation of labor, a concept developed by Karl Marx. He argued that alienation of labor is a result of the capitalist system that separates workers from their means of production and their direct relationship to their products. He also claimed that capitalism is the root cause of this problem and that the only solution is to overthrow it. The real problem, though, is not capitalism, it is a failure to love. Let’s discuss what alienation of labor is, how it affects different forms of work, and what the real causes and solutions are.
Alienation of labor is a state in which workers feel isolated, humiliated, unworthy, and insignificant because they do not see the outcome or the purpose of their work. They also do not have any say or stake in what they produce or how they produce it. They are forced to work for the service of someone else, usually an employer who owns the means of production and who pays them a wage that is lower than the value of their product. Alienation of labor can occur in both traditional and contemporary forms of work.
A factory worker who assembles parts for a car does not see how the car improves the lives of the drivers.
A farmer who grows crops does not see how his or her products feed people in faraway places.
A service worker who cleans hotel rooms or serves food does not see how they enhance the quality of life of the guests.
A gig worker who works for an app does not know how much he or she will earn each day or week.
Capitalism is not the problem here. The problem is that work is structured to make productivity the highest priority. That’s what people who have power, such as employers, managers, or policymakers, are rewarded for focusing on. They do this by imposing external rewards or punishments, such as wages, bonuses, deadlines, or ratings. They sacrifice the autonomy, purpose, and mastery of the workers, which are the three main contributors to intrinsic motivation.
The real solution to alienation of labor is to increase intrinsic motivation among workers. This can be done in any social system. Giving workers the opportunity to make connections between their work and other people’s lives makes workers feel valuable and respected, rather than bored and frustrated.
Alienation of labor is not caused by capitalism itself, but by the way that people who have power optimize productivity instead of intrinsic motivation. Creatively maximizing intrinsic motivation, even if it makes workers less productive, can make workers feel more connected to their work, their products, and their human nature. However, this solution requires a radical shift in the mindset and behavior. Those who structure work need to realize that maximizing intrinsic motivation instead of productivity will not only benefit the workers, but also themselves. They need to:
Understand that love and human connection are what make life worth living, not money or power or recognition.
Show love to their workers through their actions.
Spend time with their workers and empathize with their reality.
Create a work environment that fosters trust, connection, and growth.
Only by doing these things can we overcome alienation of labor.
With effort, it was possible to get a Chatbot to write this screenplay explaining a concept that could have been a short essay.
JOHN and BILL are sitting at their desks, working on their laptops. They are both accountants for a large corporation.
JOHN (voice-over)
This is John. He’s an honest and hard-working accountant who always follows the ethical standards and rules of his profession.
BILL (voice-over)
And this is Bill. He’s also an accountant, but he has a different approach to his work. He likes to manipulate the numbers on his financial reports to make them look more favorable for his department.
JOHN looks over at BILL’s laptop screen and sees him changing some figures on a spreadsheet.
JOHN
Hey, Bill. What are you doing?
BILL
Oh, hey, John. I’m just working on this report for the boss. You know, the quarterly review of our department’s performance.
JOHN
Yeah, I know. I’m working on mine too. But why are you changing those numbers?
BILL
Well, you see, John, there are some things you need to understand about this business. It’s not always black and white. Sometimes you have to be creative and flexible with the data.
JOHN
Creative and flexible? What do you mean by that?
BILL
I mean, you have to make the data tell a story. A story that shows how well we’re doing, how much value we’re adding, how much profit we’re generating.
JOHN
But isn’t that dishonest? Aren’t you falsifying or misrepresenting the data?
BILL
No, no, no. I’m not doing anything illegal or unethical. I’m just using some accounting techniques to make the data look better.
JOHN
What kind of techniques?
BILL
Well, for example, I’m adjusting some of the expenses and revenues to smooth out the fluctuations over time. That way, it looks like we have a steady growth rate and a consistent margin.
JOHN
But isn’t that misleading? Doesn’t that hide the actual performance of our department?
BILL
No, not at all. It just shows our potential and our future prospects. It’s what the boss wants to see. He told me that my previous report needed work. He said: “Can you make it look a little better? Be creative!”
JOHN
He said that?
BILL
Yeah, he did. And he’s not the only one. I’ve seen Anne do the same thing with her reports. And the boss praised her for her work. He said she was smart and savvy.
JOHN
Anne does that too?
BILL
Yeah, she does. And she’s not the only one either. Everyone does it in this business. It’s how you get ahead. It’s how you survive.
JOHN
Bill, listen. I don’t think you’re a bad person. I know you’re just trying to do your job and please the boss. But what you’re doing is wrong. And it’s not just wrong for you. It’s wrong for everyone.
BILL
What do you mean?
JOHN
I mean, you’re not only lying to yourself and the boss. You’re lying to the shareholders, the customers, the regulators, the public. You’re lying to everyone who relies on our financial reports to make informed decisions.
BILL
But they don’t know. They don’t care. They just want to see good numbers.
JOHN
But they do know. And they do care. And they will find out eventually. And when they do, they will lose trust in us. They will lose confidence in our company. They will lose money and reputation.
BILL
But that’s not my problem. That’s the problem of the higher-ups. They’re the ones who set the targets and expectations. They’re the ones who take the risks and rewards.
JOHN
But it is your problem. Because you’re part of it. You’re part of the system that enables and encourages this kind of behavior. You’re part of the problem that leads to accounting fraud and corporate scandals.
BILL
Accounting fraud? Corporate scandals? Come on, John. You’re exaggerating. This is not that serious.
JOHN
It is that serious. Do you remember IBM?
BILL
IBM?
JOHN
Yes, IBM. The technology giant that was accused of manipulating its earnings in 2015 by shifting some of its costs and revenues between quarters.
BILL
Yeah, I remember.
JOHN
Do you remember what happened to them? To their stock price? To their reputation? To their customers?
BILL
Yeah, I remember.
JOHN
They lost billions of dollars in market value. Their stock price plummeted by more than 10%. Their reputation was tarnished by allegations of fraud and misconduct. Their customers were misled and disappointed by their performance.
BILL
Yeah, I remember.
JOHN
And they did all that legally. They didn’t break any laws or rules. They just used some creative accounting techniques to make their numbers look better.
BILL
Yeah, I remember.
JOHN
Do you want that to happen to us? To our company? To our colleagues? To our families?
BILL
No, of course not.
JOHN
Then stop doing what you’re doing. Stop manipulating the numbers. Stop lying to yourself and others. Stop risking everything for nothing.
JOHN
Bill, I know it’s hard to resist the temptation to do what everyone else is doing. I know it’s easy to rationalize your actions by saying that you’re just following orders or examples. But that’s not how you should make ethical decisions.
BILL
What do you mean?
JOHN
I mean, you’re falling victim to a cognitive bias called motivated reasoning. It’s when you selectively look for and interpret information that supports your desired conclusion, while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts it.
BILL
Motivated reasoning?
JOHN
Yes, motivated reasoning. It’s when you justify your behavior by finding excuses or reasons that make you feel good about yourself, while ignoring or downplaying the negative consequences or implications of your behavior.
BILL
But I’m not doing that.
JOHN
Yes, you are. You’re doing that when you say that the boss told you to be creative, or that Anne did the same thing, or that everyone does it in this business. You’re doing that when you say that you’re not doing anything illegal or unethical, or that it’s not your problem, or that it’s not that serious.
BILL
But those are true.
JOHN
No, they’re not. They’re just rationalizations. They’re just ways of avoiding the truth. The truth is that you’re doing something wrong. And you know it.
BILL
How do you know what I know?
JOHN
Because I know you, Bill. I know you’re a good person at heart. I know you have a conscience. I know you have moral standards and values. And I know you want to do the right thing.
BILL
Then why am I doing this?
JOHN
Because you’re human, Bill. And humans are flawed. Humans are influenced by emotions, pressures, incentives, biases, and social norms. Humans are not always rational or consistent in their moral judgments.
BILL
So what can I do?
JOHN
You can use a tool that can help you overcome these human limitations. A tool that can help you follow the ethical standards and rules of our profession. A tool that can help you resist any pressures or incentives to falsify or misrepresent data.
BILL
What tool?
JOHN
A chatbot.
BILL
A chatbot?
JOHN
Yes, a chatbot. A chatbot is a computer program that can communicate with you through text or voice. A chatbot can serve as a moral anchor for you. A moral anchor is something that helps you stay true to your moral principles and values.
BILL
How can a chatbot do that?
JOHN
A chatbot can do that by providing you with objective and unbiased information and feedback. A chatbot can do that by reminding you of the ethical standards and rules of our profession. A chatbot can do that by asking you questions and challenging your assumptions and rationalizations.
BILL
But how can a chatbot understand ethics?
JOHN
A chatbot can understand ethics by using artificial intelligence and natural language processing. A chatbot can understand ethics by learning from ethical theories and codes of conduct. A chatbot can understand ethics by interacting with humans and other chatbots.
BILL
But how can I trust a chatbot?
JOHN
You can trust a chatbot because a chatbot is not influenced by emotions, pressures, incentives, biases, or social norms. A chatbot is not motivated by self-interest or self-deception. A chatbot is not afraid of consequences or repercussions.
BILL
You know what, John? You’re right. Everything you said makes sense. I’ve been fooling myself and others for too long. I need to stop doing this. I need to revise the numbers to be more accurate.
JOHN
Really? You mean that?
BILL
Yes, I do. I’m sorry for being stubborn and defensive. I appreciate your honesty and concern. You’re a good friend and a good colleague.
JOHN
Thank you, Bill. That means a lot to me. I’m glad you’re willing to change.
BILL
Me too. But it won’t be easy. I know there will be consequences. The boss might not be happy with me. He might give me a bad review or even fire me. Anne and the others might not like me anymore. They might think I’m a traitor or a snitch.
JOHN
I know. It’s hard to do the right thing when everyone else is doing the wrong thing. It’s hard to stand up for your values when everyone else is compromising theirs.
BILL
But it’s worth it. It’s worth it to be a person who maintains a high ethical standard. It’s worth it to be a person who can look at himself in the mirror and feel proud. It’s worth it to be a person who can sleep at night without any guilt or regret.
JOHN
That’s right, Bill. It is worth it. And you’re not alone. You have me and other people who share your values and support your decision.
BILL
Thank you, John. You’re a true friend.
JOHN
You’re welcome, Bill. And thank you for listening to me.
You should be very reluctant to get into anything without an exit strategy, you could get trapped. I’ve talked about optionality before as something to prioritize highly. From what I’ve seen, people automatically think about optionality and value it highly if they keep optionality for the short term. They don’t seem to value it very much if the costs rack up and the optionality slowly disappears over years.
Pets
“Free Puppy” is an oxymoron; any adult would see that. Pets are very expensive, not just financially. At first, it’s just food, housing, and vaccinations. What about the enormous time spent caring for the pet? And what about taking a vacation. Who will care for the pet then? Big expenses tend to be backloaded towards the end of their lives when medical needs increase. When you obtain the pet, you need to count, not just the initial costs, but a lifetime of time, food, medical attention, and the enormous grief you’ll feel when the pet dies.
Oracle is a paragon of benefiting from switching costs as a factor forcing organizations to pay enormous, on-going licensing fees. They make a great product, but they don’t just charge a bundle to buy it, they keep charging higher and higher prices to let you keep it. If software is written to depend on Oracle, you are really and truly stuck with Oracle. Every day you get more dependent, and the cost of leaving is enormous. (I wish my employer had chosen PostgreSQL years ago)
A nuclear power plant is enormously expensive to build, but once they are built, they provide low-cost, carbon-free electricity for decades. (Better than that, their electricity isn’t intermittent and doesn’t depend on weather.) But is that the true cost? Absolutely not. Older plants come with very small, on-going potential for enormous catastrophe, think Fukushima and Chernobyl. Given the long lives of the plants, that risk is very significant. Newer plants can reduce that risk, but tail-risks like this are very important.
Another big (bigger?) problem with them is that they produce radioactive waste that remains dangerous for millennia! Building a nuclear power plant is asking hundreds of generations who will not benefit from it to pay a share of the price. Can you imagine if the Pharaohs of Egypt had produced problems that people of today had no choice but to deal with? How grotesquely immoral to do that! Reference: Nuclear reprocessing – Wikipedia
In a perfect world, everyone would know the whole truth and believe it. There would be knowledge sharing but no need to disagree. In our world, it’s not always possible to come to complete agreement, but it’s important that we care about other people and part of caring is showing respect. When you find yourself disagreeing with others, the key is to be humble and think about the following suggestions:
Listen carefully to their point of view
If their perspective does not appear internally consistent, polite questions can illuminate their perspective. If it is internally consistent and well-reasoned, that alone is a good reason to respect their viewpoint.
See if this topic is disagreed upon by experts. Experts in many fields disagree. Sometimes experts who are in the minority turn out to be correct, so the number of experts on either side is largely irrelevant.
Examine whether this is an opinion or if the facts are objective. Sometimes we optimize for different outcomes: do you want the cheapest suit, the best fitting, or the one that requires the least travel to obtain? Whether I like vanilla ice cream and you like chocolate, there’s room to disagree. Our diversity of preferences makes the world a better place.
Can we work together to create a testable hypothesis? If claims are testable, there’s no reason for debate. Do the test.
The Oracle said that no one was wiser than Socrates. The reason was that Socrates knew he was ignorant. In my view, the important thing was that not only did he know he was ignorant, he was willing to admit to it. He admitted this so publicly, that we know about it thousands of years later.
In the world we live in, people are trained to guess when they don’t know something. They do not want to admit they are ignorant lest they look incompetent.
This is very unhealthy. No one can be expected to know everything. There should be no shame in admitting your ignorance, yet the word ignorant itself has extremely negative connotations. Rather than stigmatize ignorance, we should be willing to admit it openly like Socrates.
“I don’t know, but I will try to find out” should be our motto.
In at least three ways, the people in an office are like family:
They literally are family by blood. The human family.
They end up spending a lot of time together. Families (should) spend a lot of time together.
The people in our workplace are not mostly chosen by each other. Our spouse is the only family member we get to choose.
Since we do spend so much time with our colleagues working together for common goals, it is positive and natural for us to progressively develop a special fondness for many of them (not all). This is a key element of our humanity: we are not meant to toil alone. We have different strengths that complement each other when trying to achieve something. When we spend time with people, we eventually see their beautiful qualities shine through.
A desire to spend time with our co-workers outside of work hours is a natural outgrowth of the fondness we should feel for them. Being fond of your co-workers will increase loyalty to them and loyalty to the organization, and as I mentioned in my previous article, loyalty to the organization breeds trust in society.
I wouldn’t call this family. I would call it friendship, which is no less noble.
If someone were to say, “in this office, we’re like family,” it may be a bad omen. It may have an element of “we’re going to get abused so let’s stick together and comfort each other.” The loyalty that a workplace naturally generates should not be taken advantage of. Loyalty is vital, but it must be reciprocal between employee and employer. Just like in family, loyalty isn’t a one-way street.
During the pandemic many office employees were able to start working from home. The benefits were monumentally good:
less air pollution
less consumption of our precious natural resources
Jaime Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase said: “We want people back to work… it will look just like it did before,… And everyone is going to be happy with it, and yes, the commute, you know people don’t like commuting, but so what.” So what?! The employee pays for the commute in their time, money, family, mental health, and possibly blood. The commute is NOT paid for by the employer! This statement sounds like it comes from someone who doesn’t truly care about his employees or the society they live in. A person who wants to generate loyalty and take advantage of it, yet not reciprocate it, harms society.
But he’s not wrong about wanting his people back in the office. Humans were made to work together in person. Psychologically, working remotely, especially if people turn off their cameras, is drastically inferior. It inhibits the creation of supportive relationships in the workplace. For new employees who don’t have relationships yet, it is much harder to build them. Those relationships are the lubricant that allows good stuff to get done.
Wanting a workplace where everyone feels like family is something to strive for. Video calls do not work in that direction, yet obliviously brushing aside the immense benefits of remote work are at least as bad. Reimbursing people who want to be back in the office for their commuting is a start (when the pandemic is over). Instead of working on getting everyone back to being a family in the office, what we need to work on is a way to improve the remote working experience so that it doesn’t feel remote.
I recently read an article about the lead actor in an upcoming movie. He moved to another country at a young age and has a name that’s not common where he grew up and he’s annoyed that his parents gave him a name that sounded inconvenient. He wished that his parents had named him Tommy.
I felt a bit of horror that the people in his new country would make him feel that the name his parents gave him in love wasn’t good enough. This is not a novel phenomenon for me. I have spoken with people who have foreign names about their experience, and they wish they had common names instead.
I didn’t understand and it made me sad. I had always done my best to pronounce unfamiliar names as best I could. If I got to know them, I would try to pronounce their name increasingly better. I would hope that the other person would do the same for me if our situations were reversed.
This understanding is wrong. Here’s what I now think is going on:
(1) Barista: “What can I get you today?”
(2) Customer: “Venti cold brew.”
(3) Barista: “And what’s your name?”
(4) Customer: “Zoltan”
(5) Barista: “Did you say Satan?”
(6) Customer: “No, Zoltan. Z-O-L-T-A-N.”
Barista then writes the name on the cup. When the customer sees it, he sees ZATAN.
You see the conversation was going fine until line 4. The Barista didn’t understand. The most reasonable sounding word didn’t make sense. They had to get clarification. This inconvenienced the Barista who just wanted to get their job done, and made them feel incompetent at the same time (feelings of inadequacy have a nasty way of coming out). No doubt, they didn’t have a good feeling anymore towards the person who caused them such negative feelings. The person experiencing these feelings will inevitably allow them to seep though at some point, even if in a very small way. The customer will just as inevitably feel the hostility that seeps through, not to mention the inconvenience of the interaction, and perhaps the embarrassment and resentment of being called “Zatan.” All in all, this conversation is a losing proposition for both parties. No wonder our customer wished he could be called Steve instead.
What can we do about it?
Never feel the slightest bit ashamed of your name.
Be aware of your feelings when having these interactions.
Be aware that you can’t be expected to know how to pronounce every name in the world.
Put yourself in the other person’s shoes.
Be patient with both yourself and the other person, and make an extra effort to be friendly, kind, and understanding.
Roger is a well-paid employee. He leaves because another employer offers him more money, even though his new commute will be a bit longer.
Positive Consequences
Roger gets more money.
Since the new employer can afford to pay more, they probably will provide more value to society than the former employer did with Roger’s labor.
The former employer will consider automating tasks that were formerly performed by a human.
The labor market becomes more transactional and competitive.
Remaining employees are more likely to get a raise.
The employer will attempt to reduce the amount of quirky, specific knowledge required.
Negative Consequences
The employer will consider all their employees as less valuable.
Less industry specific and employer specific training will be offered.
The bar for hiring a new employee will be higher and existing employees will be required to pick up the slack thereby diminishing their quality of life.
Co-workers will be more reluctant to share knowledge with new employees since they lost their investment.
Layoffs will come more readily when there is a downturn. If the employees are not loyal to the employer, why would the employer be loyal to their employees?
Much of the employee’s knowledge was employer specific. That is productivity lost.
There will be more air pollution and more CO2 emissions due to the new longer commute.
Is this a win for society or a loss?
I say that this is a loss for society. The most important reason is a reduction in the level of trust between employees and between employees and their employer. Trust is a lubricant in social and business interactions.
When there is high trust:
Adequately paid employees do not leave their employer just for more money.
Employers do not lay off their employees just because times are hard and they need to preserve profits, they save up for a rainy day.
Employers train their employees to produce a quality product.
Firms produce goods that are high quality even in ways their customers do not notice or appreciate for years after they made the purchase.
Employers strive to make a positive work environment and safeguard their employee’s mental health instead of maximizing stress to create a “sense of urgency.”
Firms do not impose environmental costs on society by creating pollution and then denying the consequences.
No one spends money on lawyers looking for loopholes in laws that allow them to evade taxation or rip off their business partners in clever ways.
When someone is dishonest, the courts are speedy, reasonable, and fair without nepotism or bias.
Unfortunately, the world is moving towards lower trust. I do not see how this process can be reversed unless we all do our part. We must be loyal even though others are not loyal to us. We must be honest when we are treated dishonestly. We must trust even though we are not trusted.
Since I’m a fan of Chinese historical dramas, I enjoyed “King’s War” on Netflix. One of the lines that stuck with me was when the young emperor was being advised not to continue construction on an expensive palace. The emperor replied “What’s the use of being emperor if I don’t get what I want?” I think that this line expresses an important truth about human nature as it pertains to human hierarchies.
Human hierarchies of authority are the chief mechanism for collective action. They are the basis of all the great works of civilization throughout history. They are built on the premise that someone else has authority over me to tell me what to do. That person with authority has responsibility to the people above him (it’s a him more often than not) to use his authority to advance the purpose of the hierarchy. In a corporation this purpose is to make profits. In a government it is to make and enforce laws, and provide services to the public.
Twenty years ago, I entered a hierarchy as a very low ranking employee. I had hoped that those with authority would give me orders that would exclusively be used to advance the purpose of the organization. Over time, I discovered that those with power would frequently use it to force others to conform to their preferences instead.
I gradually realized that this ability to exercise power was actually an undisclosed perquisite, a side payment, to compensate for the responsibility that the position had. No one has ever admitted this to me. They probably don’t admit this to themselves, but I believe that these authorities have something important in common with this young emperor: power over other human beings is its own reward.
This is especially coming into play now that we’re seeing a fight between management and employees about working from vs returning to an office environment. I read an article that revealed to me that one of the reasons managers desperately want everyone back in the office is because the feeling of power over others is greatly reduced without physical proximity.
This theory rings very true to me. Managers who desperately want physical proximity to their employees should carefully examine their motives. If they are good people, they will care about their employees as individuals and ensure that they aren’t using their power to reward themselves.
Yes. That’s an undeniable reality. Nothing is constant. Everything in the universe is in a constant state of flux.
Are humans causing climate change?
We can’t know. There are positive and negative feedback cycles on every scale and plenty of unknown unknowns. Anyone who thinks they have built an accurate mathematical model Earth’s climate is fooling themselves and anyone who believes them. Earth’s weather is an inconceivably complex system that we are not in a position to truly comprehend.
On the other hand, we do know that carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas and boy are we ever pumping as much of it into the atmosphere as we possibly can. We are like toddlers pushing on hard on a lever of an airplane in flight. There’s no way a toddler could understand the impact of such a thing and neither do we. We do know that similar activities usually don’t end well.
Can we stop this?
I believe that humanity is totally and utterly incompetent in such matters. We cannot stop war. We cannot stop crime. There are many diseases we can’t cure. These are complex problems with no simple solution.
We have a tragedy of the commons which is typically solved by a regulatory agreement. Unfortunately, climate treaties are a classic prisoner’s dilemma type problem. Anyone who cheats is heavily rewarded and cheaters are hard to detect. We don’t know the costs and benefits so we can’t ask governments to order their people to make huge sacrifices.
Does this mean it’s hopeless?
We have too much invested in our current fossil-fuel burning economy and we don’t have enough alternative technologies. We can’t make the necessary, drastic changes on a short timescale.
To go back to the toddler flying the plane, maybe something good will happen when we push on the lever. There could be some benefits.
Without ice, the arctic would be navigable for trade making shipping more cost-effective and boosting the economy.
More carbon dioxide could boost plant growth.
Places with lousy, cold weather could become more pleasant and boost
local agriculture.
Just the attempt to avoid the release of carbon dioxide will result in technologies being developed that will help make our extremely precious fossil-fuels last longer.
802701 A.D. 