What do you think?
Rate this book
The Death of Homo Economicus: Work, Debt and the Myth of Endless Accumulation
For neoclassical economists, Homo economicus, or economic human, represents the ideal an energetic worker bee that is a rational yet competitive decision-maker. Alternatively, one could view the concept as a cold and selfish workaholic endlessly seeking the accumulation of money and advancement—a chilling representation of capitalism. Or perhaps, as Peter Fleming argues, Homo economicus does not actually exist at all.
In The Death of Homo Economicus , Fleming presents this controversial claim with the same fierce logic and perception that launched his Guardian column into popularity. Fleming argues that as an invented model of a human being, Homo economicus is, in reality, a tool used by economists and capitalists to manage our social world through the state, business, and even family. As workers, we are barraged with constant reminders that we should always strive toward this ideal persona. It’s implied—and sometimes directly stated—that if we don’t then we are failures. Ironically, the people most often encouraged to emulate this model are those most predisposed to fail due to their socioeconomic the poor, the unemployed, students, and prisoners.
Fleming illuminates why a peculiar proactive negativity now marks everyday life in capitalist societies, and he explores how this warped, unattainable model for workers would cause chaos if enacted to the letter. Timely and revelatory, The Death of Homo Economicus offers a sharp, scathing critique of who we are supposed to be in the workplace and beyond.
In The Death of Homo Economicus , Fleming presents this controversial claim with the same fierce logic and perception that launched his Guardian column into popularity. Fleming argues that as an invented model of a human being, Homo economicus is, in reality, a tool used by economists and capitalists to manage our social world through the state, business, and even family. As workers, we are barraged with constant reminders that we should always strive toward this ideal persona. It’s implied—and sometimes directly stated—that if we don’t then we are failures. Ironically, the people most often encouraged to emulate this model are those most predisposed to fail due to their socioeconomic the poor, the unemployed, students, and prisoners.
Fleming illuminates why a peculiar proactive negativity now marks everyday life in capitalist societies, and he explores how this warped, unattainable model for workers would cause chaos if enacted to the letter. Timely and revelatory, The Death of Homo Economicus offers a sharp, scathing critique of who we are supposed to be in the workplace and beyond.
224 pages, Paperback
Published October 15, 2017
25 people are currently reading
506 people want to read
About the author
Peter Fleming
9 books28 followersProfessor of Work, Organisation and Society at Queen Mary College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 9, 2018
In the world of Peter Fleming’s book The Death of Homo Economicus, we drown in debt and are crushed by work. Everyone has student loans, credit card debt, or payday lenders on their heels. Trapped by these obligations, most of us have no choice but to work until we die at our desks, or snap, and go on the lam. The latter is what happened to Steve Slater, the Jet Blue flight attendant who, while taxiing, yelled expletives at passengers over the intercom, deployed the water escape slide, and took to the apron.
For Fleming, the workplace is a theater of brutality. An article in Forbes expresses the zeitgeist by suggesting that maybe fear is a legitimate management tactic. Employees of a British news organization arrive at their work stations, one day, to find heat-tracking devices that they are supposed to wear. Their bosses want to ensure they are at their desks. Londoners now spend 18 months of their lives commuting. A survey of 9,000 workers suggests that most don’t believe they can do their jobs in a 40-hour week, they’ve experienced an increase in hours in the last five years, and that their work-life balance is, well, unbalanced. An apocryphal story circulates on the internet of a tax inspector who dies at his desk and isn’t noticed for five days. It’s not true, but Fleming suggests its believability, that someone might be working around the clock, constantly at their desk, is telling.
Maybe even worse than the workplace is the gig economy. This is the sector of the workforce made up of people who work temporary jobs, and are considered their own bosses. They are freelancers and temps. These workers are often exploited, Fleming explains, “It was recently revealed that couriers at Parcel Force–a British delivery firm–could be penalized £250 a day if they called in sick. This was to cover the cost of finding a replacement driver.” Gig workers are sometimes free to work when and where they want. However, they must cover all of their own costs, including healthcare, training, and equipment. And they are often only paid for the time they spend working; Uber drivers only get paid when they take rides. Fleming suggests this is like a bartender who only gets paid when they pour drinks.
Many gig workers can’t afford to pay for their own healthcare, and are on public assistance. This has effectively transferred the burden of providing healthcare from private companies to the state. For Fleming, the “ultra-responsible autonomy” of the gig economy has turned deadly and absurd. The rash of cab driver suicides speaks most profoundly to this, as does the story of the Uber driver who, after her water broke, squeezed in one more ride before she drove herself to the hospital.
The author could be accused of cherry-picking the most shocking examples of the trials individuals face today. But his most interesting and lapidary chapter is an exploration of how we arrived at the gig economy, with the entire burden of debt and work is placed on the individual. It all comes from the idea behind "homo economicus."
John Stuart Mill, the British political theorist, expressed in 1836 his desire to study “a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end.” In other words, a person who wants to do the least amount of work to gain the most amount of wealth. Underneath this idea lies the assumption of a cold, rational person, who is primarily interested in themselves. It’s a reductive, mythical figure. C.S. Devas gave it a name in 1883 when he noted that “Mill has only examined homo oeconomicus, or the dollar-hunting animal.”
This figure–homo economicus, economic man, the dollar-hunting animal–never existed, but it made theorizing about how people might act possible. It was a convenient way to make models. And it is not a remininent of the 19th century; it is still used today. Lefty economist Paul Krugman admits that “most economists–myself included–nonetheless find an economic man useful.”
While the idea of homo economicus has waxed and waned in popularity for the last two hundred years, it experienced a big resurgence as the foundation for neoliberal economics in the 1960s. Economist Milton Friedman successfully used the assumptions behind homo economicus to unearth concrete evidence about spending and saving, a realm that many believed was impossible to study by scientists, more the area for psychological speculation. The model of the “rational actor” (his name from homo economicus) also allowed Freidman to predict the stagflation of the 1970s (a rise in inflation coupled with a rise in unemployment, an event many thought impossible). It was a miraculous achievement. So miraculous that homo economicus and the “rational expectations” that underlay her seemed powerful, justified, and untouchable. Scholars and theorists began to apply the idea to everything. (None of this history is covered by Fleming, which is a shame because it is crucial to understand the book.)
Most importantly for Fleming, was the application of rational expectations to a theory developed by Friedman’s colleagues at the University of Chicago: the idea of “human capital.” It was the invention of economists Gary Becker and Theodore Schultz. They believed that humans, because they were rational and predictable, should be treated like an investment, just like a factory, a plot of land, or a patent might be. People possess skills, education, and ideas that are of value. One way to look at this is that people are like little mini-corporations or “mini-enterprises,” and they try to gain more skills at the lowest possible costs and then leverage those skills into more pay.
The idea of human capital was thought-up during a period when most employees stayed at one job for most of their working life. So at the time, it might have encouraged businesses to spend money on developing their workforce through training, paying off their student loans, etc. But today, people may work for many different employers, and if you are a gig worker, tens or maybe even hundreds of employers in your lifetime. This deincentivizes investment in employees. The human capital theory has now come to justify workers saddling all the costs for not only their equipment (like an Uber driver’s car), but their training, certification, education, and healthcare. Fleming points out that “based on an extreme version of self-interested individualism, job autonomy was bastardized.” Skyrocketing students’ debts now can be seen as the burden of the "ultra-responsible autonomous worker"– homo economicus.
And Fleming sees the logic of self-interest, of homo economicus, not just infecting our work life. We have “social capital” (“your net worth is your network”), “cultural capital” and “intellectual capital.” We have the politics of the self, each voter vociferously advocating for their own micro-demographic (themselves). Tinder has turned dating into a marketplace. Fleming points out that “love (which implies family and this is against the idea of mini-enterprises) was replaced by one-night stands. Especially as the ideals of economic self-reliance and independence supplanted expectations of a long-term relationship with an employer.” It’s tough out there.
Our world has been turned into a bleak place where inequality is rampant, and humans struggle to find meaning. The philosopher Gilles Deleuze once commented that capitalism causes suffering because it denies people the ability to make something beautiful. But Fleming brings up theorist Giorgio Agamben’s negative take of the same idea: that we are denied the ability to say no to work. Gig workers know this is true. They often can’t turn down a gig for fear that there might not be any jobs tomorrow. They don’t have any confidence in when the next paycheck is coming.
Fleming’s book is a forced march through a leftist hellscape, but it begs important questions: has the aspiration to rationality, to liberation and individualism, to radical autonomy served us well? How can we think about our economic life in a way that binds us together?
For Fleming, the workplace is a theater of brutality. An article in Forbes expresses the zeitgeist by suggesting that maybe fear is a legitimate management tactic. Employees of a British news organization arrive at their work stations, one day, to find heat-tracking devices that they are supposed to wear. Their bosses want to ensure they are at their desks. Londoners now spend 18 months of their lives commuting. A survey of 9,000 workers suggests that most don’t believe they can do their jobs in a 40-hour week, they’ve experienced an increase in hours in the last five years, and that their work-life balance is, well, unbalanced. An apocryphal story circulates on the internet of a tax inspector who dies at his desk and isn’t noticed for five days. It’s not true, but Fleming suggests its believability, that someone might be working around the clock, constantly at their desk, is telling.
Maybe even worse than the workplace is the gig economy. This is the sector of the workforce made up of people who work temporary jobs, and are considered their own bosses. They are freelancers and temps. These workers are often exploited, Fleming explains, “It was recently revealed that couriers at Parcel Force–a British delivery firm–could be penalized £250 a day if they called in sick. This was to cover the cost of finding a replacement driver.” Gig workers are sometimes free to work when and where they want. However, they must cover all of their own costs, including healthcare, training, and equipment. And they are often only paid for the time they spend working; Uber drivers only get paid when they take rides. Fleming suggests this is like a bartender who only gets paid when they pour drinks.
Many gig workers can’t afford to pay for their own healthcare, and are on public assistance. This has effectively transferred the burden of providing healthcare from private companies to the state. For Fleming, the “ultra-responsible autonomy” of the gig economy has turned deadly and absurd. The rash of cab driver suicides speaks most profoundly to this, as does the story of the Uber driver who, after her water broke, squeezed in one more ride before she drove herself to the hospital.
The author could be accused of cherry-picking the most shocking examples of the trials individuals face today. But his most interesting and lapidary chapter is an exploration of how we arrived at the gig economy, with the entire burden of debt and work is placed on the individual. It all comes from the idea behind "homo economicus."
John Stuart Mill, the British political theorist, expressed in 1836 his desire to study “a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end.” In other words, a person who wants to do the least amount of work to gain the most amount of wealth. Underneath this idea lies the assumption of a cold, rational person, who is primarily interested in themselves. It’s a reductive, mythical figure. C.S. Devas gave it a name in 1883 when he noted that “Mill has only examined homo oeconomicus, or the dollar-hunting animal.”
This figure–homo economicus, economic man, the dollar-hunting animal–never existed, but it made theorizing about how people might act possible. It was a convenient way to make models. And it is not a remininent of the 19th century; it is still used today. Lefty economist Paul Krugman admits that “most economists–myself included–nonetheless find an economic man useful.”
While the idea of homo economicus has waxed and waned in popularity for the last two hundred years, it experienced a big resurgence as the foundation for neoliberal economics in the 1960s. Economist Milton Friedman successfully used the assumptions behind homo economicus to unearth concrete evidence about spending and saving, a realm that many believed was impossible to study by scientists, more the area for psychological speculation. The model of the “rational actor” (his name from homo economicus) also allowed Freidman to predict the stagflation of the 1970s (a rise in inflation coupled with a rise in unemployment, an event many thought impossible). It was a miraculous achievement. So miraculous that homo economicus and the “rational expectations” that underlay her seemed powerful, justified, and untouchable. Scholars and theorists began to apply the idea to everything. (None of this history is covered by Fleming, which is a shame because it is crucial to understand the book.)
Most importantly for Fleming, was the application of rational expectations to a theory developed by Friedman’s colleagues at the University of Chicago: the idea of “human capital.” It was the invention of economists Gary Becker and Theodore Schultz. They believed that humans, because they were rational and predictable, should be treated like an investment, just like a factory, a plot of land, or a patent might be. People possess skills, education, and ideas that are of value. One way to look at this is that people are like little mini-corporations or “mini-enterprises,” and they try to gain more skills at the lowest possible costs and then leverage those skills into more pay.
The idea of human capital was thought-up during a period when most employees stayed at one job for most of their working life. So at the time, it might have encouraged businesses to spend money on developing their workforce through training, paying off their student loans, etc. But today, people may work for many different employers, and if you are a gig worker, tens or maybe even hundreds of employers in your lifetime. This deincentivizes investment in employees. The human capital theory has now come to justify workers saddling all the costs for not only their equipment (like an Uber driver’s car), but their training, certification, education, and healthcare. Fleming points out that “based on an extreme version of self-interested individualism, job autonomy was bastardized.” Skyrocketing students’ debts now can be seen as the burden of the "ultra-responsible autonomous worker"– homo economicus.
And Fleming sees the logic of self-interest, of homo economicus, not just infecting our work life. We have “social capital” (“your net worth is your network”), “cultural capital” and “intellectual capital.” We have the politics of the self, each voter vociferously advocating for their own micro-demographic (themselves). Tinder has turned dating into a marketplace. Fleming points out that “love (which implies family and this is against the idea of mini-enterprises) was replaced by one-night stands. Especially as the ideals of economic self-reliance and independence supplanted expectations of a long-term relationship with an employer.” It’s tough out there.
Our world has been turned into a bleak place where inequality is rampant, and humans struggle to find meaning. The philosopher Gilles Deleuze once commented that capitalism causes suffering because it denies people the ability to make something beautiful. But Fleming brings up theorist Giorgio Agamben’s negative take of the same idea: that we are denied the ability to say no to work. Gig workers know this is true. They often can’t turn down a gig for fear that there might not be any jobs tomorrow. They don’t have any confidence in when the next paycheck is coming.
Fleming’s book is a forced march through a leftist hellscape, but it begs important questions: has the aspiration to rationality, to liberation and individualism, to radical autonomy served us well? How can we think about our economic life in a way that binds us together?
July 11, 2018
Very angry and rambly wall of text I tried to power through and failed at. Ended up skimming the second half and not taking away very much.
Builds points around anecdotes and tries to generalise BUSINESS BAD, SHARING ECONOMY IS EXPLOITATION etc.
Key personal takeaway:
Human values originate from what we consider to be the ultimate ends of what we do, allowing us to decide whether collectively behaving this or that way is best for everyone, including the natural environment. At some point, all individuals and societies must inevitably encounter this moral reckoning. It is the good part of being alive. Even if you have no answer, a significant sense of communal empowerment is derived from the ability to pose them in public.
____
Capitalism creates a great deal of socio-economic 'crap' as a rule (e.g. pollution, stress, insecurity, waste, etc.) the inevitable collateral damage of profit-seeking behaviour. When the business system offloads this crap, it gets passed down a vast chain until it ca't be passed any further.
There is a fear of knowledge, facts that might disconfirm the rhetoric and surface the dirty reality of life under free markets. But it is the hatred of democratic dialogue and exchange that stands out, debate about the figures and open policy discussion.
The stance of there being no correct information is just as corrosive to democracy. As politicians draw upon this to make even bolder falsehoods, they satisfy a public expectation. Everyone knows it is a lie. But through repetition the tone of the debate is changed, regardless of the statement's veracity.
Inheritance is today the predictor of a person's wealth in their lifetime. (c.f. author amazed by the immovable, ironclad expectation of entitlement among the student body.)
Because almost all the costs of living are now firmly placed onto the individual (rather than equally distributed through progressive taxation policies) it suddenly becomes extremely expensive to be a full, normal participant of the workforce. In work subsidies mean that the taxpayer is subsidising big business as they openly rip-off anyone they can.
Collectivisation is crucial for building and protecting workers' rights since we have nothing else to sell but our labour power. Getting together is therefore essential. The so-called sharing economy ironically kills that ethos.
When humanity is unleashed at the office, we don't just get the nice, caring and fair stuff. Humans obviously have a dark side, which the rules and regulations are meant to keep a lid on. Petty favouritism probably thrives under such lawless circumstances.
"Creative capitalism" is largely a myth. The IT revolution relied on sources beyond the profit making centres that commercialised them.
The pressure to pay dividends to share-holders means little is invested in the economic sustainability of the business itself.
The issue with privatising natural monopolies that are also public goods (public transport, water supply) ends up with profits being privatised while liabilities are socialised as long as possible.
Outsourcing one service can have a domino effect, creating further need for private sector involvement (e.g. supervision and policing).
Thought experiment: you can get every invention up to the year 2001, including clunky Google and Amazon, but also running water and toilets. Or you can get everything after 2001, including the iPhone and Facebook,but have to forgo all pre-2001 inventions. It's not hard to predict the option most of us would choose.
Commercialisation of health and education, ostensibly to inculcate personal responsibility, rewrites the narrative.
As civic institutions are starved of funds and inevitably become substandard, the unsatisfied 'customer' blames the service providers (university lecturers, train drivers, junior doctors, police officers) rather than the leaders responsible for these organisations.
"The man died at his desk and nobody noticed' urban legend is depressing for another reason. Yes, the office should have realised the man was dead. But they also should have noticed that his work wasn't getting done.
More worryingly, the very meaning of a job changes from a discernable input (where we collectively decide how and where our efforts are directed) to a characterless output, jobs that are nothing more than a forgettable number on a spreadsheet. We see this when politicians and business leaders celebrate a drop in unemployment. The number of jobs is all that matters, not their quality or social purpose.
Proper labour consists of both (a) the task and (b) the essential, supportive background activity all jobs require (e.g. using the restroom). Paying only for (a) makes no sense, and that is why it is difficult to measure individual productivity with simple quantitative metrics in an organisation.
Low investment is perhaps due to the obvious deal struck between the state and capital concerning the problem of unemployment. Technological advancement is delayed to ensure a surfeit of jobs (spare capacity).
The trouble with human capital theory is that the ideal enterprising individual categorically ignores the traditional boundaries that were once erected between work and non-work.
Unless they are already wealthy, most people won't have immediate access to the funds required for tuition fees. There is thus a clear connection between the reschematisation of people as human capital and the tremendous rise of student debt.
A culture of informality can bring out the nasty, capricious side of people, especially when it comes to promotions or misconduct procedures. A bit of bureaucracy can be useful to ensure unprejudiced outcomes.
Uberisation and low-skilled jobs are tiringly expensive to the state and individual workers alike, damaging labour productivity and economic growth. Employee well-being undeniably declines because of poorer pay, onerous management structures and lack of investment in training.
Signs of trouble only matter if displayed by subordinates. Violence is only allowed to flow downwards but never upwards.
In reality the market economy has nothing to do with the competent distribution of scarce resources. It instead represents a tyranny of pure means unconnected to the logic of social needs.
Builds points around anecdotes and tries to generalise BUSINESS BAD, SHARING ECONOMY IS EXPLOITATION etc.
Key personal takeaway:
Human values originate from what we consider to be the ultimate ends of what we do, allowing us to decide whether collectively behaving this or that way is best for everyone, including the natural environment. At some point, all individuals and societies must inevitably encounter this moral reckoning. It is the good part of being alive. Even if you have no answer, a significant sense of communal empowerment is derived from the ability to pose them in public.
____
Capitalism creates a great deal of socio-economic 'crap' as a rule (e.g. pollution, stress, insecurity, waste, etc.) the inevitable collateral damage of profit-seeking behaviour. When the business system offloads this crap, it gets passed down a vast chain until it ca't be passed any further.
There is a fear of knowledge, facts that might disconfirm the rhetoric and surface the dirty reality of life under free markets. But it is the hatred of democratic dialogue and exchange that stands out, debate about the figures and open policy discussion.
The stance of there being no correct information is just as corrosive to democracy. As politicians draw upon this to make even bolder falsehoods, they satisfy a public expectation. Everyone knows it is a lie. But through repetition the tone of the debate is changed, regardless of the statement's veracity.
Inheritance is today the predictor of a person's wealth in their lifetime. (c.f. author amazed by the immovable, ironclad expectation of entitlement among the student body.)
Because almost all the costs of living are now firmly placed onto the individual (rather than equally distributed through progressive taxation policies) it suddenly becomes extremely expensive to be a full, normal participant of the workforce. In work subsidies mean that the taxpayer is subsidising big business as they openly rip-off anyone they can.
Collectivisation is crucial for building and protecting workers' rights since we have nothing else to sell but our labour power. Getting together is therefore essential. The so-called sharing economy ironically kills that ethos.
When humanity is unleashed at the office, we don't just get the nice, caring and fair stuff. Humans obviously have a dark side, which the rules and regulations are meant to keep a lid on. Petty favouritism probably thrives under such lawless circumstances.
"Creative capitalism" is largely a myth. The IT revolution relied on sources beyond the profit making centres that commercialised them.
The pressure to pay dividends to share-holders means little is invested in the economic sustainability of the business itself.
The issue with privatising natural monopolies that are also public goods (public transport, water supply) ends up with profits being privatised while liabilities are socialised as long as possible.
Outsourcing one service can have a domino effect, creating further need for private sector involvement (e.g. supervision and policing).
Thought experiment: you can get every invention up to the year 2001, including clunky Google and Amazon, but also running water and toilets. Or you can get everything after 2001, including the iPhone and Facebook,but have to forgo all pre-2001 inventions. It's not hard to predict the option most of us would choose.
Commercialisation of health and education, ostensibly to inculcate personal responsibility, rewrites the narrative.
As civic institutions are starved of funds and inevitably become substandard, the unsatisfied 'customer' blames the service providers (university lecturers, train drivers, junior doctors, police officers) rather than the leaders responsible for these organisations.
"The man died at his desk and nobody noticed' urban legend is depressing for another reason. Yes, the office should have realised the man was dead. But they also should have noticed that his work wasn't getting done.
More worryingly, the very meaning of a job changes from a discernable input (where we collectively decide how and where our efforts are directed) to a characterless output, jobs that are nothing more than a forgettable number on a spreadsheet. We see this when politicians and business leaders celebrate a drop in unemployment. The number of jobs is all that matters, not their quality or social purpose.
Proper labour consists of both (a) the task and (b) the essential, supportive background activity all jobs require (e.g. using the restroom). Paying only for (a) makes no sense, and that is why it is difficult to measure individual productivity with simple quantitative metrics in an organisation.
Low investment is perhaps due to the obvious deal struck between the state and capital concerning the problem of unemployment. Technological advancement is delayed to ensure a surfeit of jobs (spare capacity).
The trouble with human capital theory is that the ideal enterprising individual categorically ignores the traditional boundaries that were once erected between work and non-work.
Unless they are already wealthy, most people won't have immediate access to the funds required for tuition fees. There is thus a clear connection between the reschematisation of people as human capital and the tremendous rise of student debt.
A culture of informality can bring out the nasty, capricious side of people, especially when it comes to promotions or misconduct procedures. A bit of bureaucracy can be useful to ensure unprejudiced outcomes.
Uberisation and low-skilled jobs are tiringly expensive to the state and individual workers alike, damaging labour productivity and economic growth. Employee well-being undeniably declines because of poorer pay, onerous management structures and lack of investment in training.
Signs of trouble only matter if displayed by subordinates. Violence is only allowed to flow downwards but never upwards.
In reality the market economy has nothing to do with the competent distribution of scarce resources. It instead represents a tyranny of pure means unconnected to the logic of social needs.
October 28, 2018
'The Death of Homo Economicus' (Pluto Press 2017). It's a great read on the 'sad and lonely figure of homo economicus - the economic human being, the financialized little soul tortured by debt, insecure work and the pressure to compete and perform in every aspect of life. Enjoyed the chapter on work and the rise of depressing new work forms associated with the gig economy and zero hour contracts and the rise of bullshit jobs and the universal obsession with appearing busy and on your emails 24/7. Also includes some great reflections on the whole work-life balance bullshit, the forced deformalization of work relationships which often lead to even more pressure to compete with colleagues for face time with the boss at 'informal brunches' over the weekend or the corporate gyms of the private sector. All of this is painfully familiar and interesting.
But what I found really intriguing but which the author only really mentioned in passing, is how the overcharged economic discourse is crucial to the advancement of fascist mentality.
If we want to understand Trump and the rise of the far right in the West, we need to analyse the economic and political re-structuring following the 2008 global financial crisis and the social destruction that has unfolded since the recession while wealth has taken on ever more concentrated forms.
I still think that Democracy in Chains is one of the more important books on the takeover of political power by billionnaires post 2008 recession but this book provides some good thoughts on the economic restructuring 'exploitation without production' (think Uber and Airbnb) and its devastating impact on homo economicus.
But what I found really intriguing but which the author only really mentioned in passing, is how the overcharged economic discourse is crucial to the advancement of fascist mentality.
If we want to understand Trump and the rise of the far right in the West, we need to analyse the economic and political re-structuring following the 2008 global financial crisis and the social destruction that has unfolded since the recession while wealth has taken on ever more concentrated forms.
I still think that Democracy in Chains is one of the more important books on the takeover of political power by billionnaires post 2008 recession but this book provides some good thoughts on the economic restructuring 'exploitation without production' (think Uber and Airbnb) and its devastating impact on homo economicus.
June 6, 2020
I sometimes think about year 5000 - I see it as a cashless and jobless society, everything automated, no prisons and all that crap. Of course, most economic models become redundant in such society - and this is why I liked this book a lot - it made me better understand the reasons for why the transition to this imaginary year 5000 might take so long. This book is very radical in the ways that it describes the possible flaws of the current economic thinking and provided some good points with examples to think about.
February 4, 2019
I wanted to give this title a higher rating, I really did. Unfortunately, Peter Fleming filled the pages with bold claims that are backed up by little more than anecdotal evidence. Homo Economicus reads like a rage piece that is high on description and low on prescription. Interesting insights on the nature of wreckage economics, neoliberalism and work are diluted by tirades and digressions that tangle any attempt to focus the text. I will be thinking of his ideas related to the value of work, extreme individualism and runaway capitalism, but most of all, what the book might have been. I would say the book would work better as a series of essays, but then I forget if the author has anything beyond tangents masquerading as arguments. Read with a stiff drink.
October 2, 2017
I found this book to be disappointing. It has a rambling and wordy style that actually says very little to me. It appears to be written around a series of anecdotal experiences which are used to demonstrate what a failing and morally bereft society we live in. Oh dear! No - I do not recommend this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 31, 2017
Mildly interesting with some coherent points about the gig economy and the reasoning behind lack of productivity improvement. But too much pretentious psycho-babble and plenty of candidate paragraphs for pseuds corner.
January 30, 2022
The Death of Homo Economicus offers a good examination of the current state of work in what he calls 'wreckage capitalism'.
"An important first step is to demonstrate how ultra-responsible autonomy isn’t a more effective and efficient form of economic rationality. On many levels it is economically irrational once we step back and look at its wider effects. Zero-hours contracts, Uberisation and low-skilled jobs are tiringly expensive to the state and individual workers alike, damaging labour productivity and economic growth. Employee wellbeing undeniably declines because of poorer pay, onerous management structures and lack of investment in training. Neoliberal discourse attempts to cloak these dysfunctions by emphasising individual choice and responsibility once again. If you’re a loser in the new world of work it must somehow be your fault. Human capital theory perfects this maxim.
" (p.208).
And the future of work (and society) looks grim. Fleming argues against the nihilism of 'accelerationism' and the Empire of Hardt and Negri. The author seems to endorse a form of 'exit politics': "Here actors are sceptical about participating in dialogue with those whom they resist, since it often turns out to be merely a ruse for identifying troublemakers and silencing collective grievances, especially by way of consultation and other forms of inclusive exclusion. … This type of separatism is refreshing since it correctly identifies the completely wrecked nature of power, so why even bother engaging with such a catastrophe in the first place? What political exit exactly entails in this regard was always a bit problematic, however. The idea, of course, is loosely based on the collective self-reliance and communal independence of the working class. Moreover, this isn’t some faraway space of exteriority. Independence may actually already be partially formed given the way capitalism so heavily relies on an autonomous substratum of sociality among the 99%-ers in order to reproduce itself (e.g., self-organisation, knowledge sharing, amateurism, informal knowhow, self-help, etc.). But translating that latent potential into a wider social reality has proven difficult. The freeloading and parasitical clutches of the ruling class have consistently undermined the full and independent realisation of the common" (p.245).
There are resonances of Marx's rise of proletariat power through the combine, but clearly from a different place - that of a totally atomized workforce pushed to the wall.
"An important first step is to demonstrate how ultra-responsible autonomy isn’t a more effective and efficient form of economic rationality. On many levels it is economically irrational once we step back and look at its wider effects. Zero-hours contracts, Uberisation and low-skilled jobs are tiringly expensive to the state and individual workers alike, damaging labour productivity and economic growth. Employee wellbeing undeniably declines because of poorer pay, onerous management structures and lack of investment in training. Neoliberal discourse attempts to cloak these dysfunctions by emphasising individual choice and responsibility once again. If you’re a loser in the new world of work it must somehow be your fault. Human capital theory perfects this maxim.
" (p.208).
And the future of work (and society) looks grim. Fleming argues against the nihilism of 'accelerationism' and the Empire of Hardt and Negri. The author seems to endorse a form of 'exit politics': "Here actors are sceptical about participating in dialogue with those whom they resist, since it often turns out to be merely a ruse for identifying troublemakers and silencing collective grievances, especially by way of consultation and other forms of inclusive exclusion. … This type of separatism is refreshing since it correctly identifies the completely wrecked nature of power, so why even bother engaging with such a catastrophe in the first place? What political exit exactly entails in this regard was always a bit problematic, however. The idea, of course, is loosely based on the collective self-reliance and communal independence of the working class. Moreover, this isn’t some faraway space of exteriority. Independence may actually already be partially formed given the way capitalism so heavily relies on an autonomous substratum of sociality among the 99%-ers in order to reproduce itself (e.g., self-organisation, knowledge sharing, amateurism, informal knowhow, self-help, etc.). But translating that latent potential into a wider social reality has proven difficult. The freeloading and parasitical clutches of the ruling class have consistently undermined the full and independent realisation of the common" (p.245).
There are resonances of Marx's rise of proletariat power through the combine, but clearly from a different place - that of a totally atomized workforce pushed to the wall.
July 17, 2024
A devastating and bracing critique of the 10 years since the global financial crisis of 2008, and the ongoing damage wreaked on workplaces and societies by a veritable rogues' gallery of neoliberal economics, austerity, gig work, privatisation, rising debt, and more.
Fleming is an engaging dystopian tour guide with critical tools and labels for describing the slow death of harmful economic abstractions like homo economicus, or the human as the 'dollar hunting animal', and other highly individualistic, self-interested theories of socioeconomic life, such as human capital theory.
Coupled with inequality, faceless bureaucracy and climate change, this leads the book to a very pessimistic place, where people's lives are increasingly taken over by insecurity, despair, danger, and a strong desire to escape work by any means possible.
The book focuses mainly on the UK, although the same picture applies to the US, Australia, NZ and many other contexts by extension.
Fleming is adept, scornful, and sometimes darkly funny as he weaves through tragic and absurd examples of greed, resistance, and death. Many examples are taken from the news, a matter of public record. At times, the book becomes less accessible when it goes deeper into psychodynamic and philosophical analysis (think Zizek), but sometimes this is insightful for understanding irrational, contradictory rhetoric and trends.
The book's conclusion is bleak but not without some hope. Be ready for something to change, be worthy of something better for the planet and societies, it seems to say...
Fleming is an engaging dystopian tour guide with critical tools and labels for describing the slow death of harmful economic abstractions like homo economicus, or the human as the 'dollar hunting animal', and other highly individualistic, self-interested theories of socioeconomic life, such as human capital theory.
Coupled with inequality, faceless bureaucracy and climate change, this leads the book to a very pessimistic place, where people's lives are increasingly taken over by insecurity, despair, danger, and a strong desire to escape work by any means possible.
The book focuses mainly on the UK, although the same picture applies to the US, Australia, NZ and many other contexts by extension.
Fleming is adept, scornful, and sometimes darkly funny as he weaves through tragic and absurd examples of greed, resistance, and death. Many examples are taken from the news, a matter of public record. At times, the book becomes less accessible when it goes deeper into psychodynamic and philosophical analysis (think Zizek), but sometimes this is insightful for understanding irrational, contradictory rhetoric and trends.
The book's conclusion is bleak but not without some hope. Be ready for something to change, be worthy of something better for the planet and societies, it seems to say...
July 29, 2025
What a mess of a book. The author constantly jumps around different ideas without any coherent underlying argument or support. Individual anecdotes, twitter and reddit comments, and movie plots and quotes are regularly used to support unsubstantiated claims.
Any potentially interesting ideas are undermined by this and soon after starting the book there's a feeling that this is more of an individual rant than anything with real substance. Avoid.
Any potentially interesting ideas are undermined by this and soon after starting the book there's a feeling that this is more of an individual rant than anything with real substance. Avoid.
April 7, 2018
The cover looks good. but the book itself isn't very compelling with arguments I've heard before, about privatizing government agencies and those corporations get rich while shortchanging the public... Also interesting critique of Uber and the 'sharing economy,' but we all know this world has problems already :p
May 13, 2018
Phenomenally disappointing book which promises an in-depth critique of the current economy and work/life balance, but swiftly degenerates into a bunch of anecdotal rants which support the author's one main thrust -that Neoliberalism = bad, Socialism = good.
July 20, 2019
An unceasing onslaught of bad news about economics and the workplace. We've heard this before, some of us believe it, some don't, but whether we do or don't the juggernaut rolls on. Depressing and hard to get through for that reason. I gave it four stars for trying...
February 16, 2023
A very insightful read but there is too much content in it that is relevant; I reckon it would have been organized in an even better way.
The reason, I gave 4 stars is because in the last 100 pages, I often got lost and had to lasso myself back to it.
The reason, I gave 4 stars is because in the last 100 pages, I often got lost and had to lasso myself back to it.
Read
February 11, 2021book is good. capitalism is bad.
May 1, 2022
Ramblier version of arguments I've heard much more succinctly elsewhere.
July 9, 2023
Insightful, but the author almost always seems to veer into the topic of “traps of privatisation” , on whose foundations the myths of work and debt are built upon
October 26, 2024
A heated and passionate examination of our society's obsession with wealth accumulation. This obsession results in a broken society with a diminished public sphere and an increasingly uninhabitable world.
Fleming draws heavily on examples from the UK, highlighting the increasing privatization of public institutions and services. His factual, data-based examination is complemented by snarky and sarcastic personal takes that occasionally ignite a revolutionary fire—or at least inspire the urge to organize a public protest with like-minded, concerned individuals.
However, the book becomes somewhat repetitive, especially in the final chapters. You could skip these rambling sections without missing any new or insightful information.
Fleming draws heavily on examples from the UK, highlighting the increasing privatization of public institutions and services. His factual, data-based examination is complemented by snarky and sarcastic personal takes that occasionally ignite a revolutionary fire—or at least inspire the urge to organize a public protest with like-minded, concerned individuals.
However, the book becomes somewhat repetitive, especially in the final chapters. You could skip these rambling sections without missing any new or insightful information.
September 10, 2019
The segment on basically suicidal political responses to the hegemonic death cult hit me more on this read: largely, I think, I have lost all belief in an alternative. I haven't gone accelerationist, but that may largely be that the power structure already is - so, there's little point in it as a rejection of (take yer pick really). Which, is explicitly a reason Fleming gives not to be an accelerationist - but that doesn't provide any meaningful hope, you know? There are those who can resign themselves to struggle for its own sake - knowing that evil will always triumph, but those folks tend to believe there's another world of sorts where Justice does exist. For the disbeliever, it all seems rather pointless. Pick any one of the unimaginable extremes which are now the norm, and how do you not become deflated and exhausted by that magnitude? Whether it's one local area's drought, or homelessness in a single city, or any individual and deliberate genocide of the day. Nevermind the hyperobjects that are American Empire or Climate Change(read: catastrophe).
Best to hide. Give in to fear and powerlessness. Cause there's millennia of history which say this can't, and won't, be stopped until total collapse - it really doesn't matter if that collapse is human extinction this time around. You think it should, but it doesn't.
Best to hide. Give in to fear and powerlessness. Cause there's millennia of history which say this can't, and won't, be stopped until total collapse - it really doesn't matter if that collapse is human extinction this time around. You think it should, but it doesn't.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews