Course:
Money
Imagine working fewer hours, earning more, and feeling truly fulfilled by your job. Sounds like a dream, right? The reality for most of us, however, is far from it. Work dominates our lives, yet many jobs feel increasingly pointless, offering little more than a paycheck. The video “The Sad Truth About Work” tackles this very issue, examining how productivity has skyrocketed over the past century, but the rewards haven’t been equally distributed. This imbalance raises fundamental questions about the nature of work, wealth, and societal priorities. In a world where cryptocurrency and blockchain technology promise decentralization and fairness, these ideas take on new significance, as they reveal both the possibilities and limitations of our current financial systems.
The video begins by recounting a job that was both soul-crushing and, in hindsight, seemingly pointless. From this personal anecdote, the narrative expands to explore a much broader issue: the modern-day disconnect between increasing productivity and personal fulfillment. While productivity has soared—thanks to technological advancements—most people work just as much, if not more, than their parents and grandparents, with wages stagnating in comparison to the economic growth generated.
One of the most striking claims in the video is that, since the 1980s, the richest 1% has captured almost twice as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the global population. The narrator poses a powerful question: if we’re producing so much more today, why aren’t we working less or earning more? The video paints a picture of a system where automation and efficiency benefit the few, while the majority remain stuck in jobs that often feel devoid of purpose.
Clear Link Between Productivity and Labor Market Shifts
One of the video’s strongest points is its analysis of how technological advancements have revolutionized industries, particularly the reduction of the workforce in the Swedish forestry sector. Automation has reduced the need for labor, yet workers haven’t enjoyed more leisure time or proportionate wage increases. This is a compelling observation, as it highlights a key inefficiency in how we’ve allocated the gains of increased productivity. History supports this argument—industries across the globe have replaced workers with machines, but the wealth generated from these productivity boosts has largely gone to capital owners rather than workers.
Insight into Wealth Concentration
The video’s data on wealth distribution, specifically that the richest 1% have captured an overwhelming share of productivity gains, aligns with current research on economic inequality. For example, Oxfam’s reports on global wealth distribution echo this sentiment, showing how wealth concentration at the top has accelerated in recent decades. This strengthens the video’s argument that the benefits of productivity are not being shared fairly, reinforcing the need for systemic change.
The Concept of Pointless Jobs
The idea that many modern jobs are “bullshit jobs,” as coined by anthropologist David Graeber, resonates strongly. Many service-sector roles, especially in telemarketing or corporate bureaucracy, create little actual value and are often designed to sustain the current economic system rather than improve it. The narrator’s telemarketing experience is an accessible and relatable example of this phenomenon.
Overemphasis on Pointless Work Without Solutions
While the video makes a strong case that many jobs feel pointless, it doesn’t adequately address potential solutions. Yes, productivity has increased, and many jobs are redundant, but what are the alternatives? This question remains largely unanswered. Could we shift towards a universal basic income (UBI) model, as some experts suggest? Or should we be exploring new economic models that prioritize work-life balance and fulfillment over mere productivity?
Simplified View of Wealth Redistribution
The narrator’s argument that the wealthy have captured the lion’s share of productivity gains is compelling, but the video oversimplifies how wealth redistribution might work. In a globalized economy, where wealth generation is increasingly complex and multinational, redistributing resources isn’t as simple as taxing the rich or reducing working hours. The complexities of economic policy, market forces, and technological disruption aren’t fully explored, leaving the viewer with a somewhat idealistic view of what needs to change.
Limited Perspective on Technological Impact
While the video acknowledges the role of automation in displacing workers, it doesn’t explore how technology could also be the solution. For example, blockchain technology and decentralized platforms could democratize finance and work, providing more opportunities for individuals to benefit from their contributions directly. This potential revolution in how we view work and wealth distribution is overlooked.
The video’s critique of the current financial and labor systems offers a natural segue into the potential of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology to address some of these issues. At the heart of the blockchain movement is the desire to decentralize power, wealth, and opportunity—essentially undoing the concentrated control that the video criticizes.
Blockchain-based platforms like Bitcoin and Ethereum enable decentralized wealth creation. Unlike traditional financial systems, where capital owners hold all the cards, blockchain allows anyone to participate in the network. For example, decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols enable users to lend, borrow, and trade assets without needing intermediaries like banks, redistributing financial power in a way traditional systems don’t.
However, even within crypto, early adopters often hold outsized influence, and wealth can become concentrated among “whales”—large holders of tokens. While crypto’s promise of financial democratization is real, it faces challenges in ensuring equitable distribution of wealth, much like traditional systems.
In the crypto ecosystem, smart contracts (self-executing contracts with terms directly written into code) eliminate the need for many traditional intermediaries, automating tasks like payments, loans, and insurance claims. Platforms like Uniswap enable people to trade assets without brokers, while protocols like Aave allow for decentralized lending, removing the need for traditional financial roles.
This automation could potentially eliminate many “crap jobs” by reducing inefficiencies and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, allowing people to focus on more meaningful work or pursue creative and entrepreneurial endeavors. However, there is still the question of whether mass adoption of these technologies will create new “pointless jobs” within crypto itself.
The video’s message—questioning the necessity of traditional work structures in light of modern productivity—holds significant implications for the future of finance and labor. As automation continues to advance, the future of work will likely involve a greater reliance on technology to handle mundane or repetitive tasks, potentially freeing people to pursue more meaningful roles. However, the challenge will be ensuring that the wealth created by increased productivity is distributed fairly.
Blockchain technology could play a critical role in this transition. Decentralized systems have the potential to redistribute wealth more equitably, but this will require overcoming existing challenges, including scalability, security, and ensuring true decentralization.
In the long term, we may see a fundamental shift in how we view work, with more emphasis on job satisfaction, creative pursuits, and entrepreneurship—especially as blockchain technology enables new forms of value creation that don’t rely on traditional hierarchies or centralized control.
As someone deeply involved in both finance and blockchain, I find the video’s critique of productivity and wealth distribution particularly timely. Blockchain offers a tantalizing alternative to traditional finance, promising greater transparency, fairness, and efficiency. However, it’s important to temper idealism with realism. While blockchain can decentralize certain aspects of finance, it’s not a cure-all for economic inequality. Much like in traditional finance, the first movers often capture the most value, and true decentralization is difficult to achieve.
That said, I’m optimistic. The potential of decentralized platforms to eliminate “pointless work” and create new opportunities for meaningful contributions is immense. But to truly realize this potential, we need to foster a culture that values creativity, innovation, and, most importantly, fairness—both in traditional systems and within the blockchain space.
The video’s central question—why do we continue to work so much despite unprecedented productivity gains?—is one that resonates deeply. As technology, automation, and AI continue to reshape industries, we need to ask ourselves how best to share the benefits of these advancements. Blockchain and decentralized finance may provide part of the answer, offering a way to decentralize power and wealth while reducing inefficiencies.
However, like all systems, blockchain has its own challenges to overcome. Ultimately, the future of work and finance will depend on our ability to balance technological advancement with social equity. As we move forward, the promise of a more decentralized, fairer system is within reach, but it will require collective effort and continued innovation.
Work has evolved dramatically over the last century. As technological advancements reduced labor needs in traditional industries, new sectors emerged, some meaningful, others arguably not. This lesson explores how productivity gains have shaped the modern labor market, income distribution, and the creation of wealth in traditional finance—then draws fascinating parallels to the world of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. You’ll come to understand not only why work has become more “pointless” for many, but also how blockchain could present new solutions to the problems created by traditional financial systems.
Productivity
Capital Ownership
Automation
Wealth Distribution
Pointless Work (Bullshit Jobs)
Key Points:
Explanation:
Traditional Finance vs. Crypto:
In traditional finance, these productivity gains enriched shareholders and executives rather than workers. In crypto, decentralization could theoretically spread the benefits of increased productivity more widely by empowering users to own and govern their platforms through tokens.
Crypto Connection:
Blockchain, especially platforms like Ethereum, introduces smart contracts that automate many processes, reducing the need for human labor in redundant financial tasks. DeFi protocols offer a glimpse of a future where productivity gains benefit all participants, not just a few capital owners.
Key Points:
Explanation:
Traditional Finance vs. Crypto:
Traditional finance allows capital owners to keep growing their wealth, often at the expense of wage earners. In crypto, while wealth distribution is more decentralized, there are still challenges with “whales” (large holders) concentrating power.
Crypto Connection:
Platforms like Bitcoin and Ethereum aim to create more equal opportunities for wealth creation, as they are accessible to anyone with an internet connection. However, early adopters still tend to capture most of the value, which mirrors some of the inequalities in traditional systems.
Key Points:
Explanation:
Traditional Finance vs. Crypto:
In traditional finance, automation has increased productivity but often at the expense of workers. In crypto, automation is embedded through smart contracts and decentralized networks, reducing the need for intermediaries and manual oversight.
Crypto Connection:
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) represent a radical shift in how automation can replace human labor, allowing entire organizations to run via code without managers or employees.
Key Points:
Explanation:
Traditional Finance vs. Crypto:
Traditional finance perpetuates these jobs because the system requires labor to redistribute wealth. In crypto, decentralization could remove the need for many of these jobs by automating redundant processes and creating transparent, efficient systems.
Crypto Connection:
Blockchain technology promises to eliminate unnecessary roles through smart contracts, reducing the need for middlemen. For example, platforms like Uniswap allow people to trade tokens without brokers, and DeFi lending platforms eliminate the need for traditional banking roles.
Key Points:
Explanation:
Traditional Finance vs. Crypto:
In traditional systems, capital owners get richer, while the average person’s wages stagnate. In crypto, the hope is that decentralized networks will allow for more equitable distribution of wealth, but there are still challenges with inequality due to early adoption.
Crypto Connection:
Blockchain’s potential lies in redistributing wealth through decentralized platforms. Projects like Yearn Finance, where users collectively benefit from yield farming strategies, show a glimpse of how the redistribution of financial rewards might occur in a decentralized world.
Challenges:
Solutions:
Blockchain’s transparency and automation could reduce inefficiencies and make wealth distribution more equitable. New models, like DAOs, could decentralize governance and profits.
When I was 16 years old, I landed my first real job. It was a horrible telemarketing job where we sat in windowless rooms and peddled lotteries and magazine subscriptions, mainly to old people. Looking back, I’m not very proud of the work I did there, but I did learn how to drink coffee while I worked.
I’m in the middle of transitioning from being a lawyer to becoming a filmmaker. This career transition has made me think a lot about jobs and the role work plays in our lives. In thinking about that, I’ve kept coming back to the work I did in that building, and I will explain why I keep returning to that horrible telemarketing job. But first, I want to show you something.
If you live until you’re 82 years old, you will have 984 months in your life. Here to my left, you can see a visual representation of that. These 984 dots represent your life. The red dots in the middle represent the months of your life when you will be working—8 hours per day, 5 days per week, or even more. It’s not news to anyone that we spend huge parts of our lives working, but what I find a little bit odd is that we almost never ask this question: Is it really necessary for us to let work take up such huge parts of our lives?
In the 1950s, around 200,000 people worked in the Swedish forests—sawing, cutting trees, and doing all that work. But just 20 years later, the tractor, chainsaw, and other innovations reduced that number from 200,000 to around 50,000. Then, 50 years after that, the single grip harvester and further innovations reduced the workforce to just around 15,000.
What happened in the forest industry, reducing the workforce from 200,000 to 15,000, is remarkable, but the same has happened across many industries in the 20th century. Thanks to new technologies, we’re able to produce vast amounts of goods with comparatively little effort. In Sweden, productivity has gone up around 20 times since the 19th century. Put differently, things that took 20 workers to produce in the early 19th century can today be produced by only one worker.
This mind-blowing increase in productivity allowed our parents’ and grandparents’ generations to improve their lives in two main ways. First, their incomes and material standards of living increased. Second, these generations were also able to start working much less. In the 1920s, Sweden went from working 12 hours a day to 8 hours a day. In the 1930s, workers were given the right to take a couple of weeks of vacation. In the 1960s, Saturday work stopped. In the 1970s, parental leave was expanded, and the retirement age was lowered from 67 to 65.
But then, in the 1970s, something happened. Productivity didn’t stop increasing—it has actually doubled since then. But we stopped using the increased productivity to improve our lives. Since the 1970s, wages haven’t increased nearly as much as productivity gains, and in general, we don’t work less today than we did during the 1970s. In Sweden, by some accounts, if we start raising the retirement age, we will actually work more today. So here’s a huge conundrum: If we produce twice as much per person today compared to the 1970s, but we don’t earn twice as much or work half as much, where has all the value of that extra production gone?
Recently, an apartment in that building sold for around €6 million. So, where has the value from all that additional productivity gone? Here’s part of your answer: It has gone to the richest capital owners, like the people who can afford apartments like that.
Let’s imagine it’s the 1980s, and these 100 people represent the world’s population. The man at the top represents the richest 1% of the world, and the 50 people at the bottom represent the poorest half of the world. Fast forward from the 1980s to today—since then, productivity has nearly doubled, creating a lot of new wealth. But out of all that new wealth, the richest 1% of the world has captured almost twice as much as the bottom 50%. If you look at the productivity increase of the last two years, the richest 1% has captured almost twice as much as the other 99%.
While our parents and grandparents were able to enjoy the fruits of increased productivity by earning more and working less, since the 1980s, our generation has more or less donated the value of our increased productivity to the very richest. That’s a bit sad, right? But there’s an even sadder part to this story—namely, that the work we spend our lives doing is becoming more and more pointless.
When I worked as a teenage telemarketer some 20 years ago, I remember thinking, “Wow, this is a really horrible job.” I was miserable as a telemarketer. My telemarketer colleagues were miserable. And the people we called—they hated us for doing our job. A recent survey showed that 72% of Swedes actually wish telemarketing were illegal. So, why do we keep doing these jobs that no one seems to want, like telemarketing? Why do these jobs even exist?
In the 1850s, less than 200 years ago, 75% of the Swedish workforce worked within what economists call the primary sector—food production. Today, that number is 2%. In the 1950s, 33% of the workforce worked within the secondary sector—industry. Today, that number is 10%. In other words, only very few of us are still working in the actual production of goods. So what do the rest of us do for work?
Today, 75% of Swedes and 50% of the global workforce work within the tertiary sector—the service sector. The service sector is a curious phenomenon. Some jobs in this sector, like doctors and nurses, serve obvious human needs, but most jobs in the service sector do not. Most of these jobs have one or two things in common: 1. They don’t create any value, they just shift it around. 2. If people doing these jobs went on a permanent strike, society would be just fine or might even be better off.
So, if that’s true, why do we still do these service jobs? Because these jobs are the only mechanism we have to redistribute a little bit of money to those of us no longer needed in the production of goods and who aren’t rich enough to live off capital. To make people accept this weird and inefficient redistributive system, we’ve indoctrinated ourselves with a work ethic that says what you do at work or school is less important than the fact that you just do work or go to school.
That’s also why the work we do is becoming increasingly pointless. The point of work isn’t to have a point anymore. Research also supports how pointless work is becoming through some sad statistics. First, only 1 in 5 employees globally claim to be engaged at work. Three in five are emotionally detached or indifferent, and 1 in 5 are miserable at work or even hostile to their employer. Second, the pointlessness of the service sector is evident in how little work many office workers actually perform. Some studies show that office workers spend between 1.5 to 3.5 hours per day pretending to work while doing non-work activities like posting or shopping online. Third, research shows that when people retire from work, their health improves as if they’ve become ten years younger.
We’ve just experienced 200 years of massive, unprecedented productivity growth, and because of AI, autonomous driving, and robots, this growth will keep accelerating. Our traditional notions of work have become—or are becoming—obsolete. Our grandparents’ generations understood this when they demanded and implemented measures to reduce how much they worked. Why isn’t our generation demanding the same?
Instead of acknowledging the emancipatory potential of increased productivity, almost all politicians today are focused on creating more jobs, with some even wanting us to work more. Yes, we live longer today, but so did our grandparents when they reduced how much they worked. Here’s the key: The productivity gains have been so massive that they dwarf the relevance of increased life expectancy.
As we enter the fourth industrial revolution, we have an important choice to make. Either we keep creating pointless jobs to maintain a system that enables a small group of people to amass more and more wealth, or we start using the productivity gains to improve the lives of everyone.
I’ve been binge-reading Swedish sociologist Roland Paulsen’s books, and in this video, I’m exploring some of his ideas. If you liked this video, I suggest you check out his books. If you’re interested in critiques of work, I also recommend Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists.