The economist Tyler Cowen has the best criticism of Graeber's argument that I've seen:<p>> Graeber too often confuses “tough jobs in negative- or zero-sum games” with “bullshit jobs.” I view those as two quite distinct categories... He doubts whether Oxford University needs “a dozen-plus” PR specialists. I would be surprised if they can get by with so few. Consider their numerous summer programs, their need to advertise admissions, how they talk to the media and university rating services, their relations with China, the student lawsuits they face, their need to manage relations with Oxford the political unit, and the multiple independent schools within Oxford, just for a start. Overall, I fear that Graeber’s managerial intelligence is not up to par, or at the very least he rarely convinces me that he has a superior organizational understanding, compared to people who deal with these problems every day.<p>Source: <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/bull-shit-jobs-theory.html" rel="nofollow">https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/bu...</a>
This article is missing a category: rain dancers. These people do something pointless but highly visible and take credit when something eventually goes right.<p>Suppose you a project manager forces a team of coders to run scrums and track progress in JIRA. Unless you're one of the coders, how can you tell whether the PM increased productivity or simply wasted time on making them appear more productive? Either is possible.
The rise? It seems many have existed for some time, in one form or another. Maybe there has been an expansion, but not the rise.<p>Sometimes I agree with the sentiment of "bullshit jobs" but other times, I think without them, the world would be a duller place. That's not to say I like SEOs, or telemarketers or inefficient charities, but they help at the margin and without that I think you get stagnation.<p>Author also puts down compliance folks. I would disagree with that being bullshit. It ensures people follow the letter of the law --and if they don't AND they get audited, then there can be trouble. And that's the point. It's like saying firefighters are "bullshit jobs".
There are two previous discussion about David Graeber / 'Bullshit Jobs':<p>On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs (strikemag.org) <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6236478" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6236478</a> (5 years ago, 349 comments)<p>On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs (libcom.org) <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8561080" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8561080</a> (4 years ago, 381 comments)
There are also jobs/titles/positions that are created not out of necessity, but as a way to give someone a back-scratching, wealth-sharing 'promotion' without giving up someone else's, especially if the people involved are buddies or used to work at a same prior company. As employees, you sometime wonder 'Do we really need a Chief Retention Officer' ?
> Nobody ever reads these reports, they’re just there to flash around. It’s the equivalent of a feudal lord — I have some guy whose job is just to tweeze my mustache, and another guy who’s polishing my stirrups, and so forth. Just to show that I can do that.<p>I imagine that there are some poorly-run larger companies that have elements of this, but this seems cartoonish for the most part.
Some of these BS jobs aren't BS. Or at least, a subset of people maybe bullshitting their way through the system, but compliance personnel and corporate lawyers are necessary for reasons they don't give.
The way I see it, the higher up maslow's pyramid, the more BS it is, roughly speaking. This in terms of the function of the job, aside from your own survival and having a job.