What do you think?
Rate this book
No More Work: Why Full Employment Is a Bad Idea
For centuries we've believed that work was where you learned discipline, initiative, honesty, self-reliance--in a word, character. A job was also, and not incidentally, the source of your if you didn't work, you didn't eat, or else you were stealing from someone. If only you worked hard, you could earn your way and maybe even make something of yourself.
In recent decades, through everyday experience, these beliefs have proven spectacularly false. In this book, James Livingston explains how and why Americans still cling to work as a solution rather than a problem--why it is that both liberals and conservatives announce that "full employment" is their goal when job creation is no longer a feasible solution for any problem, moral or economic. The result is a witty, stirring denunciation of the ways we think about why we labor, exhorting us to imagine a new way of finding meaning, character, and sustenance beyond our workaday world--and showing us that we can afford to leave that world behind.
In recent decades, through everyday experience, these beliefs have proven spectacularly false. In this book, James Livingston explains how and why Americans still cling to work as a solution rather than a problem--why it is that both liberals and conservatives announce that "full employment" is their goal when job creation is no longer a feasible solution for any problem, moral or economic. The result is a witty, stirring denunciation of the ways we think about why we labor, exhorting us to imagine a new way of finding meaning, character, and sustenance beyond our workaday world--and showing us that we can afford to leave that world behind.
128 pages, Hardcover
First published October 28, 2016
29 people are currently reading
937 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
August 22, 2021
I love a book that takes a crazy position and then goes for it. Ultimately, I am not totally convinced but more convinced that I ever was that we have everything wrong about work and more importantly, I really enjoyed the ride. This is a book for those who enjoyed Graeber's Bullshit jobs but it's not making the same argument--his is more fundamental and also more specific in that he challenges the notion that we need to work to maintain certain levels of production. I think low-wage labor is not just an imposition of busy work or BS work for the sake of society or whatever, but rather, that is probably the only real work (essential work in Covid speak) that we have in society.
July 18, 2017
This was a captivating, short read. The subtitle is unfortunate, because it sounds like he is opposed to people making a living, but the book is actually advocating for a universal basic income.
The author is a professor of economic history, and he argues that our economic issues are largely because work has been in a slow-motion collapse since 1900, and that because of advancements in tech we are on the cusp of massive unemployment. Philosophically he argues that while work once helped shape character and provide meaning, today it has become an absurdist, futile, and nihilist exercise. Because of this, he says, we need to explore ways of determining meaning and shaping human character outside of work (something, in my view, that should always have been the goal) since work will be out of reach.
He critiques both the left and the right for believing full employment is a solution to this problem. The jobs are already gone so there is no solution there. He shows that the left's valorization of labor can be traced from Martin Luther to Hegel, and from there to Marx and Engels and into the left more broadly, which he believes must be abandoned. Work is disappearing and won't come back.
His case is fascinating and compelling, and the book is tiny, hitting its points in pithy language, generally avoiding jargon and technical arguments. Read this book. Wrestle with it.
The author is a professor of economic history, and he argues that our economic issues are largely because work has been in a slow-motion collapse since 1900, and that because of advancements in tech we are on the cusp of massive unemployment. Philosophically he argues that while work once helped shape character and provide meaning, today it has become an absurdist, futile, and nihilist exercise. Because of this, he says, we need to explore ways of determining meaning and shaping human character outside of work (something, in my view, that should always have been the goal) since work will be out of reach.
He critiques both the left and the right for believing full employment is a solution to this problem. The jobs are already gone so there is no solution there. He shows that the left's valorization of labor can be traced from Martin Luther to Hegel, and from there to Marx and Engels and into the left more broadly, which he believes must be abandoned. Work is disappearing and won't come back.
His case is fascinating and compelling, and the book is tiny, hitting its points in pithy language, generally avoiding jargon and technical arguments. Read this book. Wrestle with it.
November 30, 2016
Why do you work? Some work to pay the bills, others find work meaningful and fulfilling. What would you do if you didn't have to work? Would you spend more time with your family? Would you become a writer or a musician? Or would you watch TV all day?
What will you do when your job is automated by a robot? Robots have been replacing jobs since the early 1900's and Artificial Intelligence will so replace many more. The truth is most jobs humans do can be done more efficiently by machines. It sounds like science fiction but just look at those self-driving cars on the roads and ask yourself where that is heading.
We need to start thinking about what we should do as humans when half or more of us cannot work. Creating more jobs is not the answer. What would those jobs be? How much would they pay? That's what this book is about. It is a very short read, highly recommended!
I for one welcome our new AI overlords!
What will you do when your job is automated by a robot? Robots have been replacing jobs since the early 1900's and Artificial Intelligence will so replace many more. The truth is most jobs humans do can be done more efficiently by machines. It sounds like science fiction but just look at those self-driving cars on the roads and ask yourself where that is heading.
We need to start thinking about what we should do as humans when half or more of us cannot work. Creating more jobs is not the answer. What would those jobs be? How much would they pay? That's what this book is about. It is a very short read, highly recommended!
I for one welcome our new AI overlords!
April 2, 2018
I have never liked work as an institution and the fact that not only do we couple income and work, but also our personality and work, so I have my own reasons to say "fuck work". But Livingston not only says "fuck work", but also shows why full employment is impossible to achieve and will only grow more so in the years to come, and why a guaranteed annual income is not just a utopian idea, but a much-needed next step. And not only from an economic point of view. We have this work ethic, but so many jobs are pointless. Still we choose to create more of those, rather than think of ways we could go the other way.
I'm not as well-read as Livingston, so I can't say I wholly understood his critique of Arendt's work ethics view, but I do agree that this view is not feasible for most of us living in the 21st century (or even the 20th century, when she herself lived), as we are far from the philosopher kings. Some of our jobs are so pointless, that it's a crime to ask the people doing them to think of them as more than labour, as more than means to subsist.
Livingston makes many interesting points here, but I had to restart reading when I got to about 2/3 of the book, as only then did I understand what he was saying at the beginning. If you're not well-versed in these ideas, I might suggest you do the same. It's a short book, but the author does not explain the ideas he criticizes at length, so it helps if you read it at a snail's pace at times. I don't necessarily agree with everything the author says (for example, the phrase "to be our brother's keeper" and the "only love left" idea seem ridiculous to me), and his tone might annoy, but I think that he explains concisely why a guaranteed income is a much-needed and much better idea than full employment.
I'm not as well-read as Livingston, so I can't say I wholly understood his critique of Arendt's work ethics view, but I do agree that this view is not feasible for most of us living in the 21st century (or even the 20th century, when she herself lived), as we are far from the philosopher kings. Some of our jobs are so pointless, that it's a crime to ask the people doing them to think of them as more than labour, as more than means to subsist.
Livingston makes many interesting points here, but I had to restart reading when I got to about 2/3 of the book, as only then did I understand what he was saying at the beginning. If you're not well-versed in these ideas, I might suggest you do the same. It's a short book, but the author does not explain the ideas he criticizes at length, so it helps if you read it at a snail's pace at times. I don't necessarily agree with everything the author says (for example, the phrase "to be our brother's keeper" and the "only love left" idea seem ridiculous to me), and his tone might annoy, but I think that he explains concisely why a guaranteed income is a much-needed and much better idea than full employment.
November 17, 2017
I imagined that I'd like this book, since I generally support the idea of a universal basic income. The idea of "full employment" has run its course as we live in a world where work is taken over by machines, and those who produce writing, art, music, etc., are often not compensated. For the most part, I was right. Livingston does a good job describing how Democrats played a large role in defeating Nixon's Financial Assistance Program (FAP, 1970) which would have created such a system (though he fails to address any flaws in it), and of how the research behind the law (research proving UBI works) was solid. But Livingston rushes through the issue so much that he seems to me to miss a lot, to mislead, and to misfire.
He largely fails to address bigger political and economic issues at all. Near the very end of the book, he acknowledges the racism behind the populace's rejection of UBI--the notion that people of color are naturally lazy and will take advantage. Very true; this racist notion does run through the minds of many people (hence the bizarre situation of poor whites voting against entitlements which would benefit themselves).
Why, then, did Democrats--the country's perceived go-to party on social issues--reject UBI? Could it be that establishing a UBI would allow workers to be more selective in selecting employment, to demand better wages and working conditions? Although he doesn't say so directly, Livingston leaves readers with no other conclusion than that Democrats defied Republicans by either being racist themselves, or believing that the American majority were too racist to go for it. WTH? There's a lot more to this story. I have issues with the Democratic party as much as anyone, but I'm not buying some bill of goods which posits that Republican party politics aren't tainted by racism. Instead, could it be that other powerful economic interests feared that switching from a goal of full employment to UBI would hurt them, and enlisted Democrats? Livingston avoids this entire topic. And this topic is crucial to understanding the real reasoning behind rejecting a UBI.
Most of the third chapter is a critique of the Protestant work ethic and its lingering presence in our lives, even among Leftists. I find Livingston's argument to be deeply flawed. He criticizes the love and praise of craftsmanship as a joke in light of crappy jobs--that is, it's silly to envision that janitors love cleaning toilets. He cites Freud's belief that the compulsion to work is a neurosis, as well as Brown's expansion of this idea that the drive to create a surplus is "...the psychological origin and the social manifestation of what I earlier called the principle of 'productivity.' As such, it's the objective correlative of what Freud called the anal-compulsive character, and of what Max Weber called....the ascetic personality."
Livingston describes posing the question of why people work to a variety of people, from professors to prostitutes, and is all over the map in terms of explaining their responses to suit his premise. I like elements of Freud as much as anyone, but shut up already. The human drive to produce and create a surplus is what has allowed human beings to survive as a species. A neurosis? Tell that to Neolithic farmers who'd have starved if they hadn't learned that growing and storing crops was necessary for a growing population (no longer able to live by hunting and gathering) to survive.
The real problem with this urge, to me, is that a good natural impulse (not to be classified as a neurosis) has been exploited in order to promote consumer spending. Stocking up, out of fear of drought, famine, pestilence, and the approaching winter, is human nature. But it took decades of nonstop advertising to turn us into a nation of storage units.
I'm trying to avoid writing a treatise here, so I'll sum it up by saying that I'm giving this book only two stars out of five because while Livingston does a good job of arguing for a UBI, he does a horrible job of explaining why the economic powers that be have fought against it.
He largely fails to address bigger political and economic issues at all. Near the very end of the book, he acknowledges the racism behind the populace's rejection of UBI--the notion that people of color are naturally lazy and will take advantage. Very true; this racist notion does run through the minds of many people (hence the bizarre situation of poor whites voting against entitlements which would benefit themselves).
Why, then, did Democrats--the country's perceived go-to party on social issues--reject UBI? Could it be that establishing a UBI would allow workers to be more selective in selecting employment, to demand better wages and working conditions? Although he doesn't say so directly, Livingston leaves readers with no other conclusion than that Democrats defied Republicans by either being racist themselves, or believing that the American majority were too racist to go for it. WTH? There's a lot more to this story. I have issues with the Democratic party as much as anyone, but I'm not buying some bill of goods which posits that Republican party politics aren't tainted by racism. Instead, could it be that other powerful economic interests feared that switching from a goal of full employment to UBI would hurt them, and enlisted Democrats? Livingston avoids this entire topic. And this topic is crucial to understanding the real reasoning behind rejecting a UBI.
Most of the third chapter is a critique of the Protestant work ethic and its lingering presence in our lives, even among Leftists. I find Livingston's argument to be deeply flawed. He criticizes the love and praise of craftsmanship as a joke in light of crappy jobs--that is, it's silly to envision that janitors love cleaning toilets. He cites Freud's belief that the compulsion to work is a neurosis, as well as Brown's expansion of this idea that the drive to create a surplus is "...the psychological origin and the social manifestation of what I earlier called the principle of 'productivity.' As such, it's the objective correlative of what Freud called the anal-compulsive character, and of what Max Weber called....the ascetic personality."
Livingston describes posing the question of why people work to a variety of people, from professors to prostitutes, and is all over the map in terms of explaining their responses to suit his premise. I like elements of Freud as much as anyone, but shut up already. The human drive to produce and create a surplus is what has allowed human beings to survive as a species. A neurosis? Tell that to Neolithic farmers who'd have starved if they hadn't learned that growing and storing crops was necessary for a growing population (no longer able to live by hunting and gathering) to survive.
The real problem with this urge, to me, is that a good natural impulse (not to be classified as a neurosis) has been exploited in order to promote consumer spending. Stocking up, out of fear of drought, famine, pestilence, and the approaching winter, is human nature. But it took decades of nonstop advertising to turn us into a nation of storage units.
I'm trying to avoid writing a treatise here, so I'll sum it up by saying that I'm giving this book only two stars out of five because while Livingston does a good job of arguing for a UBI, he does a horrible job of explaining why the economic powers that be have fought against it.
June 15, 2017
I picked up this book after I heard a funny and irreverent interview with James Livingston on the Solecast. I've been thinking along these lines quite a bit as of late and Livingston gave me more to think about and read up on. I love this book and I am grateful to him for writing it. It is messy but perfect as it is.
Many people are out of work, many more will soon be. What does it mean to intentionally live without work? How can we imbue life and love with meaning outside of the outsized role work plays in our days and our sense of self in society. We on the left need to seriously start thinking about it, the Right has 100 year headstart in facing the truth of automation but the Left keeps trying to redeem work or use work to redeem the world or some such pointlessness.
Let's start thinking about we can "re-enchant the world" as Silvia Federici so brilliantly suggests. Let's really dig in and think about/ struggle towards what liberation will feel like and more importantly how we will feel about being liberated.
Many people are out of work, many more will soon be. What does it mean to intentionally live without work? How can we imbue life and love with meaning outside of the outsized role work plays in our days and our sense of self in society. We on the left need to seriously start thinking about it, the Right has 100 year headstart in facing the truth of automation but the Left keeps trying to redeem work or use work to redeem the world or some such pointlessness.
Let's start thinking about we can "re-enchant the world" as Silvia Federici so brilliantly suggests. Let's really dig in and think about/ struggle towards what liberation will feel like and more importantly how we will feel about being liberated.
February 7, 2025
Will we pay women’s work?
Love ❤️
Women’s work is love ❤️
Or love is women’s work
The jobs today is in relationships….
They say the disappearance of men in the labour market is cause we’re not paying love ❤️ or men think love is women’s work.
The end of the book is great,
Or race against the machines,
That people don’t want a universal basic income because they think it’s coloured people’s wages where Walmart workers have to use food stamps to just pay for their work
Where the white middle class thinks that theyve worked for their income not been subsidized.
Our above a universal basic income, and how the church
Listening to how the church and productivity and consumerism is in society…
We heavenly rewarded after their peasant incomes of good work have been done and they’re dead and long gone
Universal basic income is just not for colouring people I find, but the majority are pick and sides sure enough there’s a large amount of people left behind
This book is about worth it’s read if you want a quick book. About two hours and 10 minutes at 1.5 X speed. You’ll finish this book in a day.
Or morning like me .
Love ❤️
Women’s work is love ❤️
Or love is women’s work
The jobs today is in relationships….
They say the disappearance of men in the labour market is cause we’re not paying love ❤️ or men think love is women’s work.
The end of the book is great,
Or race against the machines,
That people don’t want a universal basic income because they think it’s coloured people’s wages where Walmart workers have to use food stamps to just pay for their work
Where the white middle class thinks that theyve worked for their income not been subsidized.
Our above a universal basic income, and how the church
Listening to how the church and productivity and consumerism is in society…
We heavenly rewarded after their peasant incomes of good work have been done and they’re dead and long gone
Universal basic income is just not for colouring people I find, but the majority are pick and sides sure enough there’s a large amount of people left behind
This book is about worth it’s read if you want a quick book. About two hours and 10 minutes at 1.5 X speed. You’ll finish this book in a day.
Or morning like me .
September 3, 2017
An interesting book discussing the idea that given the shortage of work, as a society, we need to separate income earning and work. It discusses moral and social pressures behind working, and why we do it, how we justify it, etc., despite evidence that work and income don't need to be tied together. It is more of a plea for a change of social policy at a high level rather than what we can do at an individual or community level. There are references to philosophers as well, giving it an academic focus (again, high level).
September 1, 2017
Raises the question concerning what we will do when "work for all" no longer makes sense (mostly because of technology). The book also highlights that we pay people we say we value the most, the least and those who don't actually contribute (the 1%) the most. While the book mad many important points and raises an important question, the author seemed to assume the answers were self-evident rather than attempting to explain possible answers or how to achieve them.
November 22, 2018
սիրում եմ էս տրամաբանութիւնը, որ մի բանը տասը հազար անգամ կրկնում են, տարբեր ձեւի փոփոխում ու որպէս ճշմարտութիւն ներկայացնում։
ֆուսկ իւ
ֆուսկ իւ
June 12, 2017
In the past few years there has been a flurry of discussion about the Universal Basic Income proposal. Much of this talk, understandably, addresses the political and economic aspects of this idea, as well as the strategies necessary to get it in place, particularly in the inhospitable political climate of the United States.
Livingston adds to the conversation by looking at the moral questions that arise when work is taken away as a centerpiece of personal meaning. (What do we do with our lives now that we don't have a job to go to?) He does this, however, in ways that I find generally confusing and unhelpful.
Work and love are the two activities of our lives where we interact with the world outside of ourselves to achieve meaning. He draws this insight from Freud, but it's reasonable enough. Work has already been hollowed out of its meaning, because there is no relationship (was there ever?) between what one contributes, and what one receives in pay. Livingston makes what I take to be an overdrawn distinction between "socially necessary" and "socially beneficial" work, which seems to map on to a difference between growing the food and making the cars that we need to survive (?), typically male-gendered roles, and the care-work of teaching, child, and elder care that we don't need to survive (??) and is typically female-gendered.
For him, it is the latter, socially beneficial work, which will survive the "end of work", and which will never be compensated by legible market value. He rejects Arendt's poeisis/work craftsmanship, for reasons I don't follow. For this, too, is work of love. Love of an art, of the materials one works with, of the process of creation. As a writer, and no mean one at that, I would expect more sympathy from Livingston regarding the meaning to be gleaned from craftsmanship.
No More Work raises important questions in the UBI/post-work conversation, but that conversation will need to continue so we can get to some more satisfying answers.
Livingston adds to the conversation by looking at the moral questions that arise when work is taken away as a centerpiece of personal meaning. (What do we do with our lives now that we don't have a job to go to?) He does this, however, in ways that I find generally confusing and unhelpful.
Work and love are the two activities of our lives where we interact with the world outside of ourselves to achieve meaning. He draws this insight from Freud, but it's reasonable enough. Work has already been hollowed out of its meaning, because there is no relationship (was there ever?) between what one contributes, and what one receives in pay. Livingston makes what I take to be an overdrawn distinction between "socially necessary" and "socially beneficial" work, which seems to map on to a difference between growing the food and making the cars that we need to survive (?), typically male-gendered roles, and the care-work of teaching, child, and elder care that we don't need to survive (??) and is typically female-gendered.
For him, it is the latter, socially beneficial work, which will survive the "end of work", and which will never be compensated by legible market value. He rejects Arendt's poeisis/work craftsmanship, for reasons I don't follow. For this, too, is work of love. Love of an art, of the materials one works with, of the process of creation. As a writer, and no mean one at that, I would expect more sympathy from Livingston regarding the meaning to be gleaned from craftsmanship.
No More Work raises important questions in the UBI/post-work conversation, but that conversation will need to continue so we can get to some more satisfying answers.
January 4, 2022
James Livingston's book feels like drunk history about the future. To paraphrase, with the exception of "Fuck work," which appears multiple times:
"The robots are taking all the jobs, man. Did you know that Nixon and Cheney were trying to do universal basic income way back in the 70's? They knew, man. Fuck work. We don't even need jobs. Just take Social Security from every dollar, and tax companies a little more, no problem, man... We all just have to love one another, that's all it is, man, can you even do that?"
He goes on about Marx and Freud and so on a good deal more, but that's basically it.
As Livingston points out quite a lot, he's not the only one to say that jobs are evaporating. He distinguishes himself by not thinking it's important that people do something "meaningful" like gardening or carpentry, regardless of whether they get paid. He's okay with everybody watching TV. I gather this is similar to his take in Against Thrift.
It is an interesting hodgepodge of ideas of varying goodness. For example, that if owning people is bad, then also renting people is bad.
I wonder what will happen. Are jobs on the way out? Will the world go post-scarcity, like Star Trek? Will poor people just get trampled on, as seems to largely be the case so far? If you've left the labor force already because you can survive by taking advantage of some existing device, are you the vanguard of the future jobless? What will society be like?
"The robots are taking all the jobs, man. Did you know that Nixon and Cheney were trying to do universal basic income way back in the 70's? They knew, man. Fuck work. We don't even need jobs. Just take Social Security from every dollar, and tax companies a little more, no problem, man... We all just have to love one another, that's all it is, man, can you even do that?"
He goes on about Marx and Freud and so on a good deal more, but that's basically it.
As Livingston points out quite a lot, he's not the only one to say that jobs are evaporating. He distinguishes himself by not thinking it's important that people do something "meaningful" like gardening or carpentry, regardless of whether they get paid. He's okay with everybody watching TV. I gather this is similar to his take in Against Thrift.
It is an interesting hodgepodge of ideas of varying goodness. For example, that if owning people is bad, then also renting people is bad.
I wonder what will happen. Are jobs on the way out? Will the world go post-scarcity, like Star Trek? Will poor people just get trampled on, as seems to largely be the case so far? If you've left the labor force already because you can survive by taking advantage of some existing device, are you the vanguard of the future jobless? What will society be like?
February 25, 2020
"To hell with full employment. How about full enjoyment? F*ck work." I agreed 100% with some of the arguments in this book. For instance, the faults in the current societal structures. The rising inequalities in many aspects of life. The fact that the majority of the public are wasting their precious time away by doing menial and repetitive work in exchange for monies that barely lasts. And soon, these roles will be replaced by robots. The average person who works for the establishment and only makes the very few person richer. They are stuck in life by mortgage and debt. Unfortunately no one single person can change anything on a macro level. The old adage of finding a "good, stable and secure job for life" is dead. The hypothesis of a universal basic income (UBI) system proposed by the author is rather futile and unrealistic.
There are no easy solutions to this kind of complex issues. Therefore, there is no actionable value in this book. Nonetheless, many of the facts in this book are very important for the average person to be aware of. The only thing individuals can do is to realise the harsh reality that ML and AI can do in the future. The sooner the better. And be prepared to adapt to the upcoming paradigm shift.
There are no easy solutions to this kind of complex issues. Therefore, there is no actionable value in this book. Nonetheless, many of the facts in this book are very important for the average person to be aware of. The only thing individuals can do is to realise the harsh reality that ML and AI can do in the future. The sooner the better. And be prepared to adapt to the upcoming paradigm shift.
May 9, 2022
Didn’t realize I needed a book like this one, been feeling bogged down and alienated working 50 hours a week for the past couple weeks, this book reminded me that with the innovations being made by technology we’re back to the argument that philosophers and economists were theorizing on a hundred-plus years ago.
Livingston makes an excellent argument against a topic that seems like it would be the ideal practice, that is full employment, by saying full employment at current wages is, by Aristotelian thought, actual wage slavery and is no longer necessary due to wages not being high enough and the only true social necessary labor is that of maintenance and transportation and that’s only going to be around for so much longer. Livingston also makes comparisons to both sides of the political spectrum and how they typically argue for the same thing when we should really be looking to implement a “negative income tax” or an UBI program or a program similar to Nixon’s Family Assistance Program. Also how society should let go of the Protestant work ethic and embrace a “love and care for your brother” more collectivist ideal.
I really enjoyed the well researched and thoughtful writing here, while also being kept short and sweet to not bog the general public down with semantics.
Livingston makes an excellent argument against a topic that seems like it would be the ideal practice, that is full employment, by saying full employment at current wages is, by Aristotelian thought, actual wage slavery and is no longer necessary due to wages not being high enough and the only true social necessary labor is that of maintenance and transportation and that’s only going to be around for so much longer. Livingston also makes comparisons to both sides of the political spectrum and how they typically argue for the same thing when we should really be looking to implement a “negative income tax” or an UBI program or a program similar to Nixon’s Family Assistance Program. Also how society should let go of the Protestant work ethic and embrace a “love and care for your brother” more collectivist ideal.
I really enjoyed the well researched and thoughtful writing here, while also being kept short and sweet to not bog the general public down with semantics.
May 1, 2017
Sitting down with this book was to me like a luncheon date with a host who reaches across the table and dumps a tablespoon of salt on your entree and then proceeds to blast you with an overbearing intellectual conceit. I wondered who his intended audience was as he rattled off terms and names familiar to economists but certainly not to the uninitiated, shall I say? He wanted to title the book (please pardon the "french") Fuck Work, which his editor should have approved since the word is used to excess as he rants along. He may have some pertinent things to say but he needs to show more respect for his readership.
April 6, 2021
I agree with what he has to say and I enjoyed learning about the history of universal basic income and the different studies that showed the benefits of it but I think he couldn't decide if he wanted to take a light tone or an academic one too often. I feel like there were plenty of modern day economic and historic examples which would help him prove his point but I lost interest when it was just "The French philosopher X in the year 1400 wrote Y, think about that the next time you have to CC an email!" again and again. I liked reading about how he said society has moralized having a job and people can't imagine having moral systems without a job and wish he expanded on those ideas.
November 5, 2017
This was slow going for me, because I haven't had to read philosophy since getting a B.A. I had to re-read the section on why liberals were against income supplements, and still don't get it.
There were a lot of ideas in here about craft versus industry, men's work versus women's work. It was interesting to me that when experiments were done with income supplements, the men still didn't take care of children or do household chores.
There were a lot of ideas in here about craft versus industry, men's work versus women's work. It was interesting to me that when experiments were done with income supplements, the men still didn't take care of children or do household chores.
December 4, 2017
Meh, I feel like this could have been a short essay instead of a 100 page book. The author was super repetitive and didn't really have much to say beyond, "we're reaching a point where humans don't need to work therefore love will be our work". Which...was kind of a weird way to end a book/essay, but whatever.
Don't bother to buy this book. Check it out from a library instead. The couple of hours you spend reading it will be your only cost then.
Don't bother to buy this book. Check it out from a library instead. The couple of hours you spend reading it will be your only cost then.
August 1, 2019
Yup. That about summed it up. I'm not just for cutting the work day in half, I'm politically opposed to work! Full employment is unsustainable and not everyone needs to work. And why do we insist that they do? That we kick people on the streets for it? That we allow crime and theft and greed and banking to run rampant? FUCK WORK, and READ THIS BOOK!
May 4, 2022
It’s a thought provoking book with concept the author did his best to back up with renown philosophers and economists theories as well as current events. I don’t quite agree with all that is said, but his argument is enough to give pause and rethink. Short and interesting read.
December 18, 2016
I got the book because I had already bought into the main idea. I don't think I've received much as I was already conviced.
September 2, 2017
Interesting argument for universal basic income, but I wasn't entirely sold on the 'fuck work' concept.
March 25, 2017
For ages, work equaled having a job so you could put a roof over your head, keep your belly full, clothe your back and pay your bills, taxes, mortgage, insurance, car note and other life essentials. And if you had some of your hard-earned paycheck left over you might treat yourself to a day at the spa, a night out on the town or attend a concert or sporting event.
But work doesn’t just mean money. Work also conveys discipline, education, skills, talent, passion, and making contribution to society and culture as a whole. Work is the solution to society’s ills, after all, idle hands are the devil’s workshop, right?
According to James Livingston maybe we need to take a look at our age-old idea of work and turn this idea on its head. And he goes into this further in his thought provoking book No More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea.
According to Livingston, professor of history at Rutgers University, gainful employment is seen by Americans, of all political leanings, as a proper goal for all of us instead of a problem that needs to some serious overview and overhaul, both morally and economically. We need to examine why we go to work and how it is affecting us as human beings and as a nation.
There are several problems with gainful employment for your average American worker. One includes technology and automation are replacing humans for various business transaction. We do are banking on-line, use the self-checkout at the grocery store, and check out various travel websites rather than talk about our vacation plans with a travel agent.
Another factor Livingston examines in No More Work is how we have reached peak productivity levels that do nothing more than provide a cushion of leisure for most of us. Yet it is mostly the one percent among us who truly benefit primarily due to the how both wealth and work are dispersed. We have far too many workers make less than a truly life sustaining wage, often using public assistance just to make it. And it’s not just people working at Wal-Mart. Even people who are college educated and working white collar professions rely on food stamps and other “entitlements.” Meanwhile, some CEOs make huge sums of money in both income and assets even as they make decisions that can sink a company.
And there is this idea of the “romance of work,” the age old Protestant work ethic most Americans swear by even though it doesn’t always benefit us financially, mentally, emotionally and so on.
So what is the solution according to Mr. Livingston? One solution is taxing corporate profits, which often aren’t used to fully invest in ways that benefit most of us. By now I think most of us realize “trickle-down economics” is a complete myth.
What else does Livingston suggest? Livingston also suggests implementing a guaranteed minimum basic income. This may sound familiar to many of my readers when I debunked Miriam Weaver and Amy Jo Clark’s badly researched take on this concept in my review of their book Right for a Reason.
A basic guaranteed income for all citizens is being examined again and is supported by both those on the left and the right. Personally, I think the idea is very intriguing, and even with this type of income, most of us will seek some type extra of employment to make more money and to get benefits, especially health insurance.
No doubt No More Work is brings up several controversial issues, but I do hope it’s used as a springboard when it comes to the concepts of full employment, corporate America, guaranteed basic income, raising the minimum wage, income inequality, our current tax system, entitlements, and our concepts of work, leisure, life, and money that are deeply etched into our country’s psyche.
Originally published at The Book Self:
https://thebookselfblog.wordpress.com...
But work doesn’t just mean money. Work also conveys discipline, education, skills, talent, passion, and making contribution to society and culture as a whole. Work is the solution to society’s ills, after all, idle hands are the devil’s workshop, right?
According to James Livingston maybe we need to take a look at our age-old idea of work and turn this idea on its head. And he goes into this further in his thought provoking book No More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea.
According to Livingston, professor of history at Rutgers University, gainful employment is seen by Americans, of all political leanings, as a proper goal for all of us instead of a problem that needs to some serious overview and overhaul, both morally and economically. We need to examine why we go to work and how it is affecting us as human beings and as a nation.
There are several problems with gainful employment for your average American worker. One includes technology and automation are replacing humans for various business transaction. We do are banking on-line, use the self-checkout at the grocery store, and check out various travel websites rather than talk about our vacation plans with a travel agent.
Another factor Livingston examines in No More Work is how we have reached peak productivity levels that do nothing more than provide a cushion of leisure for most of us. Yet it is mostly the one percent among us who truly benefit primarily due to the how both wealth and work are dispersed. We have far too many workers make less than a truly life sustaining wage, often using public assistance just to make it. And it’s not just people working at Wal-Mart. Even people who are college educated and working white collar professions rely on food stamps and other “entitlements.” Meanwhile, some CEOs make huge sums of money in both income and assets even as they make decisions that can sink a company.
And there is this idea of the “romance of work,” the age old Protestant work ethic most Americans swear by even though it doesn’t always benefit us financially, mentally, emotionally and so on.
So what is the solution according to Mr. Livingston? One solution is taxing corporate profits, which often aren’t used to fully invest in ways that benefit most of us. By now I think most of us realize “trickle-down economics” is a complete myth.
What else does Livingston suggest? Livingston also suggests implementing a guaranteed minimum basic income. This may sound familiar to many of my readers when I debunked Miriam Weaver and Amy Jo Clark’s badly researched take on this concept in my review of their book Right for a Reason.
A basic guaranteed income for all citizens is being examined again and is supported by both those on the left and the right. Personally, I think the idea is very intriguing, and even with this type of income, most of us will seek some type extra of employment to make more money and to get benefits, especially health insurance.
No doubt No More Work is brings up several controversial issues, but I do hope it’s used as a springboard when it comes to the concepts of full employment, corporate America, guaranteed basic income, raising the minimum wage, income inequality, our current tax system, entitlements, and our concepts of work, leisure, life, and money that are deeply etched into our country’s psyche.
Originally published at The Book Self:
https://thebookselfblog.wordpress.com...
November 15, 2018
I'm 50/50 on this one. I really enjoyed Livingston's voice, which is colloquial rather than stuffy and academic. I especially agreed with the foundation of his argument, that "full employment" is a band-aid that will not accomplish what politicians think it will accomplish when they promise to create more jobs, and that employment in general is no longer a way out of poverty. No More Work is essentially pushing for a guaranteed income, an idea that I think has great value (but, surprisingly, little uptake from "leftists").
However, I didn't totally appreciate his approach of argumentation, which seemed flimsy and piecemeal at times. Still, I very much enjoyed reading this little book for its educational elements.
3.5 Stars
However, I didn't totally appreciate his approach of argumentation, which seemed flimsy and piecemeal at times. Still, I very much enjoyed reading this little book for its educational elements.
3.5 Stars
September 23, 2019
I listened to this on audio. What was memorable to me wasn’t the subject matter, but instead was the voice of the author. This was another of those political books that made sure to trash the policies of the Bush administration. I sometimes wonder if authors chose first to trash a particular administration’s policies before they chose what topic they will write about. I wondered here. Beyond the author’s politics, the author also features his snarky humor, and I enjoyed this when not coupled with the politics. As for the topic, yup, we’re getting more efficient, so that on whole the goal of “full” employment seems excessive and unattainable. This book points out the issues, and although it is a bit confusing, it’s also quite short. I hate to say it, but I'd read more like this.
November 9, 2025
Livingston does a decent job of critiquing the idea of work overall, something with which I have long agreed. However, his idea of how to change things so that people can have the things that they need is short and not explained well. For example, he says to tax the business profits. But businesses don't work for free and if taxes are raised on businesses, they often pass those costs on to the consumer. Nor does he define which jobs are the work that we actually need to do.
Overall, intriguing premise and I like all of the scholarly work he cites, but there are better books on this topic.
Overall, intriguing premise and I like all of the scholarly work he cites, but there are better books on this topic.
August 21, 2021
Initially excited about this, but rather disappointing read overall. Very US-centric in approach, a summary of (rather outdated) research on work, primarily through an economic and political lense and not going very deep. Perhaps a personal taste but I found the language and tone very rigid and again, somehow outdated (unusual for a book published in 2016 after all).
If the topics of work/the protestant work ethic and its legacy/universal income are already of interest to you, there's not much new insight in this one.
If the topics of work/the protestant work ethic and its legacy/universal income are already of interest to you, there's not much new insight in this one.
May 2, 2025
Took me a while to finish because it's written a tad more academically than I expected, and also because life took away most of my reading time for a while.
I learned some interesting things about our economic history, and I largely agree with Livingston's stance, but for something that's really only 100 pages it was a bit of a slog to truck through. Especially since a lot of it was actually rather redundant.
Cut the content in half, and this could have just been a Medium article or blog post. Still good stuff to be found - but don't expect it to be an breezy read.
I learned some interesting things about our economic history, and I largely agree with Livingston's stance, but for something that's really only 100 pages it was a bit of a slog to truck through. Especially since a lot of it was actually rather redundant.
Cut the content in half, and this could have just been a Medium article or blog post. Still good stuff to be found - but don't expect it to be an breezy read.
January 3, 2018
Short and to the point. Agree with it or not, we are fast approaching the point where most of the work we do will have no monetary "value" (in the sense of shareholder value). What work there is will be done faster and cheaper by machines and other automation. The author pushes you, the reader, to question why we feel the need to define our self-worth by the work we do.
I recommend this book as a quick primer on the concepts of guaranteed basic income and the post-work world.
I recommend this book as a quick primer on the concepts of guaranteed basic income and the post-work world.
November 27, 2019
A fascinating, fairly convincing argument delivered from a clearly learned frame of reference...in a voice that never quite finds its tempo or tone -- a deficiency sufficiently thorough that the sharp veers from the vernacular to the pugnacious to the citing/developing registers sometimes risk undermining the credibility of the whole. Still, a worthwhile and usefully provocative read, one that might lead the reader to deeper thoughts on its topic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews