TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

506 pointsby KhalilKover 10 years ago

58 comments

furyg3over 10 years ago
While there&#x27;s a lot to debate in the article, kudos to Graeber for talking about a taboo.<p>White-collar employees &#x27;work&#x27; (periods of focused concentration) a lot less than 40 hours. There are exceptions, and HNers may deny this fact (because the demographic is different or because the taboo is more powerful in this circle), but Graeber&#x27;s inebriated cocktail party confessions match my own discussions with friends.<p>However... We&#x27;ve learned a skill, learned the job, and are available for 40 hours. Western culture really doesn&#x27;t allow us to just show up for the 15-20 hours we really work and get paid the same salary as the 40 we say we do. So instead of going home early and cooking, working in the garden, bettering themselves, or watching tv, many show up to work and have strange meetings about nothing, conversations at the coffee corner, work unproductively on a tasks that could be done efficiently if they hadn&#x27;t already been at work for 7 hours, or fuck around online while nobody is looking. It&#x27;s great for eBay and Facebook, not so much for the kids in day care.<p>To some extent, everybody knows this. Employers are starting to tolerate working from home a lot more, which I think is a tacit acknowledgement of the situation. I hope that our culture can come to grips with this and acknowledge that most people in creative jobs can&#x27;t really put in a solid 40 hours of truly productive work, while at the same time not condemning them to work as consultants with no savings or pensions.
评论 #8561728 未加载
评论 #8561560 未加载
评论 #8561663 未加载
评论 #8561703 未加载
评论 #8562314 未加载
评论 #8563039 未加载
评论 #8561837 未加载
评论 #8580960 未加载
评论 #8561710 未加载
评论 #8561680 未加载
hammerzeitover 10 years ago
This reads like a classic Graeber piece, in that he&#x27;s starts off by tackling some fascinating questions -- why are there 2x the administrative workers in the US as in Europe -- but then skips straight to the anarchist polemics.<p>Most of the jobs he categorizes as &quot;bullshit&quot; all share an element of arms-race components to them. i.e. if my competitor has really good telemarketers&#x2F;lobbyists&#x2F;corporate lawyers, I&#x27;d better have one too -- _or they&#x27;ll beat me_. How is it that that reflects some sort of keep-the-masses-down 1% malfeasance?<p>To me, the tell that he defined &quot;bullshit&quot; as &quot;jobs I don&#x27;t like or understand&quot; is that he lumped in actuaries with telemarketers -- does he think providing insurance has no value?<p>Similarly he writes: &quot;What does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law?&quot; There are more musicians employed in this country [1] than there are people in biglaw [2].<p>Ultimately, it seems like Graeber wants to return to a butcher-and-baker economy, where all our jobs are focused on directly providing services to consumers. That sounds charming, but makes as much sense as a world with all consumer startups and no b2b&#x2F;enterprise startups.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/musicians-and-singers.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;ooh&#x2F;entertainment-and-sports&#x2F;musicians-an...</a> -- 167,400 musicians<p>[2] see <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/plp/pages/statistics.php#sotflf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.harvard.edu&#x2F;programs&#x2F;plp&#x2F;pages&#x2F;statistics.php...</a> -- 70,000 lawyers in biglaw
评论 #8562235 未加载
评论 #8561678 未加载
评论 #8561698 未加载
评论 #8561539 未加载
评论 #8561659 未加载
rakooover 10 years ago
&gt; The answer clearly isn’t economic<p>I beg to differ. I totally agree with the paradox (with the advances in technology, humans should be working less) but the problem, today, is economic:<p>- In order to live you need money<p>- In order to obtain money you need to work (except for the lucky too few)<p>- Therefore, work needs to exist to provide people with money, to the point of creating &quot;useless&quot; jobs if needs be<p>How are you going to remove jobs if it so directly means no more revenue for those people ? The problem here is that we&#x27;re conflating revenue with work. The only answer is to decouple them, and introduce something like basic income (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Basic_income</a>)
评论 #8561735 未加载
评论 #8561736 未加载
评论 #8561686 未加载
评论 #8561866 未加载
评论 #8564684 未加载
评论 #8562263 未加载
ilamontover 10 years ago
Reading this, I was reminded of the &quot;B Ark&quot; from <i>Hitchhiker&#x27;s Guide To The Galaxy</i>: (1)<p><i>The B Ark is technically named &quot;Golgafrincham Ark Fleet, Ship B&quot;. The Golgafrincham civilization hatched a plan to eliminate its society of its most useless workers, namely its service sector and its paper shufflers. The Golgafrinchans created a legend that their world was about to be destroyed and they needed to build three arks. In Ark A they would put all the high achievers, the scientists, thinkers, artists, and important leaders. In Ark C they would put all the blue-collar workers, the people that build and make things. In Ark B they would put everyone else: hairdressers, TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives, and management consultants.<p>The B Ark was constructed, loaded up, and launched first. However, it was automatically set for a collision course with Earth&#x27;s sun, to finally rid Golgafrincham of these twits. And naturally, no A or C ark was ever made.</i><p>The presence of useless B Ark people in company settings has generated a lot of thought, including this person (2) who suggests dealing with them by &quot;hiring another “B” Ark person to have meetings with them. Demand that accurate minutes are kept and that they should meet at least twice day until the problem is resolved&quot; and engaging them in a useless, circular project.<p>1. <a href="http://everything2.com/title/B+Ark" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;everything2.com&#x2F;title&#x2F;B+Ark</a><p>2. <a href="http://infinite-shades.com/2011/02/14/golgafrincham-b-ark-what-to-do-when-you-dont-have-one-handy/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;infinite-shades.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;02&#x2F;14&#x2F;golgafrincham-b-ark-wh...</a>
评论 #8561624 未加载
评论 #8561502 未加载
dnauticsover 10 years ago
&quot;Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty&quot;<p>Well, to be honest in the United States employment is considered to be such a right and sacred duty that we elect politicians based on employment and even make modulation of employment a core function of the central bank.<p>A lot of laws also require people to be at their desks for 40 hours - because there&#x27;s a categorical definition of &#x27;full-time equivalent&#x27; - whether or not that person is actually (instead of nominally) working all 40 of those hours.<p>&quot;where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers&quot;<p>Graber misses quite a bit here (read on for the full context); Republicans are not resentful of teachers in general, just <i>public sector</i> teachers.
评论 #8561459 未加载
bryanlarsenover 10 years ago
As hammerzeit mentioned, a lot of bullshit jobs are there because of an arms race. Your competitors have marketers, lobbyists and corporate lawyers, so you need them too. If everybody fired 90% of their marketers, marketing dollars would go 10x as far, and things wouldn&#x27;t change much.<p>Just take a look at marketing. It&#x27;s an industry that&#x27;s so big it props up newspapers, television, Google and most of the rest the web just as a side effect. You can argue that&#x27;s a good side effect, but there are plenty of bad side effects like the invasion of privacy, cluttering up urban spaces, breaking up TV shows, et cetera.<p>This is really a case where I believe that governments should heavily tax the externalities. What would happen if taxes made advertising and other forms of marketing 10x more expensive?<p>Advertising would become much less common, but it would be much more effective due to its rarity, so that would approximately balance out. A bunch of bullshit jobs would be lost, but the government would have a bunch more money to hire people for non-bullshit jobs like building &amp; staffing schools and hospitals, as well as reducing harmful taxes like income &amp; sales taxes which also increases the number of jobs.<p>Google, the web, TV and newspapers would lose much of their income and would have to accelerate their shift towards alternative business models, but I would argue that isn&#x27;t necessarily a bad thing. Reduced taxes would mean there is more money around for consumers to pay for entertainment.<p>Bad side effects like privacy invasion would be reduced.<p>Obviously it&#x27;s not all good, perhaps there are better ways of reducing this arms race.
评论 #8561633 未加载
评论 #8562027 未加载
xpto123over 10 years ago
Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h &#x2F; 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get to 30 or less, we are at a threshold of the 4 day work week that&#x27;s why its taking longer to cut down on the work hours.<p>The 4 day work week will imply social changes, and therefore the resistance but it will come in the next 20 years.<p>The author understands that its a slow process and it takes time, but congratulations on talking about a taboo.<p>Concerning the value of jobs, in the Philippines, go to a restaurant: one guy comes and set the dishes, the other the glasses, the other takes the order, etc.<p>The root cause for this is I believe overpopulation unprecedented in the history of mankind.<p>Not to defend lawyers, but who would solve disputes? Everybody bashes lawyers, but the day an employer tries to make you sign an indemnity paper that is less than you have right, you are glad that there is a lawyer there to defend you.
评论 #8561578 未加载
评论 #8561742 未加载
评论 #8561716 未加载
insicknessover 10 years ago
What he seems to be railing against is hierarchy. It is easy to see what nurses do in a hospital. They walk around and treat the sick. The nurses have managers (or whatever they&#x27;re called). These managers don&#x27;t treat the sick themselves but they help organize the nurses. All the managers at the hospital are organized by the hospital administrator, and so on.<p>The higher up the hierarchy, the less obvious it is what people do. And with hierarchy, there is also more chance of waste and having a bullshit job.<p>But those bullshit jobs can come at almost any level. My first job out of college was at an environmental firm with extensive government contracts. The firm got paid for every hour they logged under my name on maintenance of projects that didn&#x27;t require much maintenance except on paper. So the firm got paid for me showing up and doing nothing.<p>But I can confirm that it was horrible. At first I liked that I could come in at 10 and leave at 3. After a while though, it killed me inside.
评论 #8561557 未加载
评论 #8561540 未加载
talosover 10 years ago
I find it incredible that we&#x27;re at almost 200 comments, and no one has brought up the phenomenon of people doing real (often clerical office work they don&#x27;t care too much about, except that it&#x27;s in a field they&#x27;re interested in) for <i>free</i> -- unpaid internships.<p>Despite the fact that this is quite illegal, there is no enforcement (<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-labor-department-let-companies-off-hook-for-unpaid-internships" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;how-the-labor-department-l...</a>).
评论 #8562954 未加载
rmsaksidaover 10 years ago
Regardless of the author&#x27;s ideology, this article brings something of value to software engineers: it is both to our and society&#x27;s advantage if we stop building bullshit and focus on real problems. An engineer at Kittygram is likely to be working on a bullshit, ultimately irrelevant job, but few people would question the value of an engineer&#x27;s work if he&#x27;s doing groundbreaking medical software.<p>Of course, people don&#x27;t always choose to have bullshit jobs, and getting to the level where you can build something of impact is not easy. I&#x27;m far from there myself. But I have the feeling many of us don&#x27;t really look for meaningful jobs - truth be told, we don&#x27;t even _think_ about these things.
评论 #8561583 未加载
tmylkover 10 years ago
Graeber&#x27;s idea on the solution to the problem: &quot;revolt of the caring classes&quot; instead of mass dropout is even more interesting in this interview.<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/06/01/help_us_thomas_piketty_the_1s_sick_and_twisted_new_scheme/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.salon.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;help_us_thomas_piketty_the_1...</a><p>To put it in a naive tech twist - maybe there should be an online tool that allows me to distribute a proportion of my wages to a list of &quot;people who care for me and things I care about&quot;.<p>Basically, can I create my own tax system and transact most of my affairs in it? Would anyone be interested in joining? Has DogeCoin already tried to do that?<p>I would never live completely outside of state taxation, because of obvious practicalities like the military. (By the way, Graeber has an argument that army is the reason for existence of both money and taxes in his book on Debt.)<p>In technical terms, post-bitcoin there is no reason for the state to be involved in the tax system. DogeCoin was a close attempt at an ecosystem where money goes around and contributes to good causes, not sure what is going on with it now.<p>There are successful local currencies(Brixton pound) that support local city councils, can the same thing be done on a global scale?
评论 #8561347 未加载
评论 #8561415 未加载
tim333over 10 years ago
Interesting article but Graeber seems to mix up some different issues:<p>a) We&#x27;re not working 15 hour weeks. I&#x27;d say that&#x27;s mostly because people like to do things. Give people enough money to not need to work and they&#x27;ll still want to go build stuff<p>b) His musician mate made loads as a lawyer, not much as a musician in spite of contributing more to society as a musician. That does seem to be a market failing. Gandhi types preaching peace and making a big positive impact can make nothing, patent trolls can make a fortune while screwing society. Not sure how to fix that.<p>c) &quot;The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger&quot; - not convinced by that one. I think it&#x27;s a failing of the human mind to attribute what are probably emergent market phenomena to plotting human bad guys.
评论 #8562086 未加载
klungerover 10 years ago
The &quot;elephant in the room&quot; of this article was wealth redistribution. Technological advancements <i>should</i> make it possible for people to work 15-20 hours a week. In theory. The problem is that those same technological advancements go hand in hand with increased concentrations of wealth. It is the regrettable observed tendency of people with considerably more wealth than the masses to be stingy with that wealth, feel they inherently deserve it and lack empathy.<p>So, if people in general are to benefit from technological advancements, there needs to be legislated wealth redistribution to overcome the inherent miserly-ness of the 1% whose wealth is largely a function of that technology.
评论 #8563848 未加载
binarymaxover 10 years ago
I just had a great trip to a cousins wedding and saw a lot of family. My Parents&#x27; generation are now just past the &#x27;age of retirement&#x27; and are in their late 60s and early 70s.<p>The majority of them are still working in their bullshit jobs. I asked several if they were going to retire soon and they all replied the same. If they retire what would they do? Even though their work is mostly pointless from a job function perspective, it gives them something to do and keeps them active and social. It is not stressful for them and they enjoy it for the most part.<p>I wonder if we are all working these jobs because there is nothing better to do.
评论 #8561444 未加载
评论 #8561632 未加载
评论 #8563936 未加载
评论 #8561414 未加载
评论 #8561611 未加载
esquivalienceover 10 years ago
This seems to me like an employee&#x27;s opinion, rather than that of a founder. I mean that the worker&#x27;s view of a company is as a job-creator, whereas a company founder sees a company as a tool to fill a market niche (and usually generate profit).<p>The argument against the article&#x27;s proposal is quite simple - if people will pay for a service, doesn&#x27;t that fact give the service value over &#x27;bullshit&#x27;?<p>It&#x27;s not that either&#x27;s wrong and I don&#x27;t know anything about the author&#x27;s backgound. Just interesting to think from the other person&#x27;s POV.
评论 #8561212 未加载
评论 #8561209 未加载
评论 #8561410 未加载
7952over 10 years ago
In more professional settings certain job titles seem pointless but actually add a diversity of thinking that would otherwise be lacking. For example, you may not really need a lawyer to check something. But good lawyers have a knack of identifying logical inconsistancies and always find spelling mistakes which is useful. Or an IT expert operating in an office of social scientists will think about problems in an entirely different way. Sometimes maintaining a multi disiplinary team is more important than being 100% efficient on an individual level.
Cthulhu_over 10 years ago
From my POV, working 40 hours a week instead of 15 is a conscious choice. I could probably start my own company or source of income and get away with working 15 hours or even less a week, but I&#x27;m not going to.<p>One, working for a boss is secure - I know what I&#x27;m gonna earn by the end of the month, no stress there.<p>Two... I honestly wouldn&#x27;t know what to do with the remaining time. I&#x27;m not an artsy hipster that spends all that free time being creative, I&#x27;d probably spend the extra time playing video games and growing fat. I for one need the structure in my life.
评论 #8562773 未加载
jdmichalover 10 years ago
I&#x27;m surprised to see no mention of the wage stagnation that has been occurring, at least in the US. Quite simply, people can&#x27;t stop working if they need the money that 40 hours of work brings. Meanwhile, inflation keeps ticking up and housing bubbles at rates far above inflation.<p>It could, in fact, be argued that we have made negative progress since 1910. In that same time period, most households have gone from one worker to two as women join the labor force. So now, on a household basis, we are looking at 60+ hours per week instead of 40.
Animatsover 10 years ago
This is the price of competition. It takes a lot of extra labor, over doing the stuff, to keep a competitive market going. There are a large number of items where the advertising and marketing cost exceeds the cost of production, from soft drinks to movies to pharmaceuticals. This is an overhead of capitalism, and it&#x27;s a big one.<p>The financial system has especially bloated overhead. The US used to have a financial system with three big, independent sectors - commercial banks, savings and loan companies, and stock brokers and markets. The Glass-Stegall Act kept them separate. Trouble in one sector didn&#x27;t crash another sector, because the sectors couldn&#x27;t invest in each other. That ended in the 1990s. Trouble soon followed.<p>The whole hedge fund &#x2F; &quot;private equity&quot; industry is a net lose. &quot;Private equity&quot; is really leveraged buyouts using equity-to-debt conversions to reduce taxes. It&#x27;s an artifact of tax policy, not a real industry. In many cases, the money ultimately comes from low-cost borrowing by banks from the Federal Reserve.<p>With different tax and regulatory policies, the finance industry would be about as big as it was in the Eisenhower era, far smaller than it is now. This isn&#x27;t a secret, but it&#x27;s not something discussed in public much.<p>On the medical care side, the US spends about as much in public funds on medical care as the European nations with state-paid medical care do. But that&#x27;s less than half of US medical spending. Find out what a &quot;prescription-benefit management company&quot; does, and how big they are.
jcfreiover 10 years ago
The author himself notices half way through the text that he might have gone out on a limb. If his description of &quot;bullshit jobs&quot; was at least followed by some statistics on marginal valued added (to a product, service) by that particular job (and how this margin has become lower and lower) then we could start a serious discussion about it. But now his extraordinary claims just stand there as a shallow rant, more like a romantic anecdote to Victorian economics than a fundamental analysis of capitalism.
评论 #8561565 未加载
评论 #8561463 未加载
protonfishover 10 years ago
The simple social rule that explains this is pecking order. One of the most basic human desires is dominance over others. When you have the money, you hire as many submissive minions as you can. &quot;Bullshit jobs&quot; are just an entourage. Then you display dominance over them by making them do meaningless work - the more humiliating the better. If you hired people that were actually useful, you&#x27;d be reliant on them so only get as many as you actually need to keep your organization from going under.
apiover 10 years ago
Bullshit jobs are central to how our economy works, and their history goes way back. Most &quot;work projects,&quot; unless they are to build infrastructure, are bullshit jobs. I&#x27;m convinced that a significant proportion of the military activity in the world is one big exercise in very pompous and important-seeming bullshit jobs in the defense sector. Whole sectors of the economy are bullshit.<p>The more I see, especially since 2008, the more I think Keynes was really onto something re: monetary velocity. Our biggest problem is excessive pessimism and a zero-sum mentality, manifesting as various paradoxes of thrift. Without monumental efforts at hand-waving to keep the money flowing, our tendency is to deflate all the way back to the dark ages.<p>Bullshit jobs are a semi-conscious hack to keep this from happening-- to keep people &quot;working&quot; so they get paid so the money flows.<p>The other crazy hack around this problem is inflation, and fiat currency in general.<p>The Austrian types who preach how all this nonsense is a result of these things are precisely wrong. Don&#x27;t blame the hack for the thing it&#x27;s fixing.<p>If we can find a more permanent solution to the problems that we&#x27;re hacking around, maybe we can dispense with the bullshit. Maybe that&#x27;s a guaranteed minimum income.
mianosover 10 years ago
A funny thing about this story is the photo is of the SSE. The very same place where I worked on the trading system and got down voted for &#x27;2300 a second sustained. I was doing that on PA RISC under HPUX in 1995. BFD&#x27;. More relevant to the story at hand, when the bell went for lunch, most of those people crossed their arms and put their heads down on them for a nap. I am sure many never left their desk.
评论 #8561325 未加载
tpeoover 10 years ago
Graeber makes no distinction between &quot;useful&quot; as in: a) creator of exchange value to it&#x27;s maker; b) creator of utility to it&#x27;s holder; b) psychologically &quot;meaningful&quot; to the worker. And while the core of the article deals with the latter, by not making this distinction he dangerously suggests the two former.<p>As much I&#x27;d like to believe that managers are stupid, they&#x27;re not crazy to hand out free money. If an employee generated no additional income to it&#x27;s employer, there would be no reason to hire him in the first place. Similarly, if the holder of a good derived no enjoyment from it, it would be of no value at all to him.<p>It&#x27;s hard to believe, for instance, that a &quot;corporate lawyer&#x27;s&quot; work has no social value. The job of lawyers isn&#x27;t even to win legal battles, but to avoid them in the first place. The job of a corporate lawyer is to ensure corporations are compliant with all the paperwork necessary to their operation. For sufficiently large corporations, they&#x27;re a necessary condition for it&#x27;s functioning.<p>For me, the only reason why his argument might seem personally intuitive is because the majority of things in capitalism are of no use at all to any given particular person, even if all of them are &quot;useful&quot; in some way. Paparazzi, dog-washers and all-night pizza deliverymen are useless for all but the people who demand their services. It&#x27;s not hard to see why consumers would have little interest in contract law if they deal so little with it, and when they do, their job of understanding it has already been cushioned by a specialist.<p>I see little point in coffee shops. Nonetheless, people flock to places with well-developed service economies that offer such things (e.g. New York, San Francisco) along with dog-washers. Perhaps because they know they&#x27;ll cater to their bullshit tastes too.
评论 #8561767 未加载
评论 #8561765 未加载
评论 #8562853 未加载
osehgolover 10 years ago
Glad that it&#x27;s shared, the Economist talked about it last year, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;freeexchange&#x2F;2013&#x2F;08&#x2F;labour-m...</a>. Don&#x27;t think these jobs exist because there&#x27;s some scheme to keep people free and happy &quot;The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s).&quot; Just that not many people actually build things. Currency and paper money also has a role to play here. I&#x27;d like to see that many people are encouraged to build things on a level playing field.
martingordonover 10 years ago
I wonder if the problem is exacerbated in the US by the lack of guaranteed time off.<p>That is, European workers (for example) can better fill a 35-40 hour work week because they only have to work ~47 weeks of the year, whereas in the US, many feel lucky to have even two weeks off.
jordanpgover 10 years ago
Link to original: <a href="http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;strikemag.org&#x2F;bullshit-jobs&#x2F;</a><p>In this particular case, I think linking to libcom.org instead of strikemag.org is doing a significant disservice to the author.
DanielBMarkhamover 10 years ago
I am reminded of a quote from an economics professor. &quot;Why do big nations have a lot of jobs, no matter how much they are producing? As it turns out, this is a very interesting question&quot;<p>This is the robots-are-coming-for-us fallacy rearing its head again. Once again, the premise is that we only need certain things -- food, shelter, electricity, internet, health care. Once robots make these things, well dang, there won&#x27;t be anything else for the rest of us to do, will there?<p>No, no, a thousand times no. Humans value not only things to keep them alive, but scarcity and novelty. As the basic needs become automated, huge industries will continue to explode devoted to creating scarce and novel things for other humans to collect and consume. Most of these &quot;bullshit jobs&quot; are in this sector.<p>I find these essays always have some kind of value statement, either implied or outright -- &quot;what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialist in corporate law?&quot;<p>It says that if you had a magic wand, we&#x27;d have more poets. If I had one, we probably would, too. But it tells us absolutely nothing about why there are jobs that folks don&#x27;t like, or jobs that you or I might find useless.
评论 #8562467 未加载
tawanover 10 years ago
For me, it boils down to two questions: 1) Given, that let&#x27;s say only 20% of the population does real work (doctors, teachers etc..), why should they do their work, if everybody else is enjoying spare-time all the time? And if you propose that they also could work less, therefore we would have more doctor positions to be filled, guess what, people that have valuable jobs are also the ones who really like their job, and are happy with working 40 hours, or even more. It&#x27;s somehow ironic that people won&#x27;t do work, just because they like what they do, they also want to be acknowledged monetary, no matter how much they like their job, which I can understand. Somehow we have a situation, i.e. from a doctor&#x27;s perspective, like: &quot;Yea, I&#x27;ll treat you, but only if you are also getting up at seven every morning and commute to some office and do stuff.&quot;<p>2) I think for biological reasons, people need status more than spare-time. We need some kind of hierarchy to determine who is more entitled to spread their genes. If everybody is unemployed, how do you know who has more status? Money and consequently buying power does simplify this problem very neatly, reducing it to a one-dimensional metric scale, easy to compare and communicate.
评论 #8561764 未加载
strangenameover 10 years ago
Keyne&#x27;s &quot;15 hour workweek&quot; projection cited within is an interesting thought experiment, but it ignores effects of necessary overhead.<p>For example, let&#x27;s look at the cognitive overhead I face as a programmer. There&#x27;s a certain amount of time I spend just spooling content into my brain&#x27;s working store. I&#x27;m not contributing anything new; I&#x27;m just keeping the old in my brain and coordinating with the changes my coworkers are making. Let&#x27;s pretend that forms a nice, round 10 hours of time a week. If I work another 5 hours, that time has a 2:1 overhead:production ratio. Since the productive time is what&#x27;s being sold, it operates at a steep 300% cost inefficiency. The next 5 hours brings it down to 200%, the next 10 to 150%.<p>There&#x27;s a lot that would change in our economies if we could eliminate transaction and overhead costs. But physical and temporal limitation utterly forbid that in practice. One should always take those highly abstracted economic projections and starting points of analysis: see what assumptions lead them to be skewed from reality. That post-analysis is, in my experience, often the truly enlightening part.
notdangover 10 years ago
Don&#x27;t want to defend Soviet Union, but this is very different to what I experienced while living in USSR:<p>&quot;Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). &quot;<p>It was quite the opposite. Just one person serving a huge queue.
评论 #8562886 未加载
artursapekover 10 years ago
Previous discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6236478" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6236478</a>
nevergetenglishover 10 years ago
If I had to cope with a bullshit jobs that required only physical capabilities, I should try to advance in my start-up or whatever high thinking I am doing. Newton created his gravitation law when the university was shut-down because the pest. Doing something really nasty make you enjoy a lot your mental work in your real passion.<p>Also, having your mind free but your arms working is a good way of thinking deeply.<p>Edit1: I should add I don&#x27;t like bullshit jobs!<p>Edit2: Addendum For example you should try to learn and read a lot at night but just some core points, and the next day while working physically you should echo mentally all those material, discussing, analysing all in your head.<p>When I was younger I could reason without writing, now I should need to write thing down, anyway the desire to get out of a bullshit job is a great force, the most boring the job stronger the desire to escape from that job and greater the concentration you find to center into your real passion, your real job, the one you adore.
netcanover 10 years ago
I think he&#x27;s talking about jobs where this is arguable (though never entirely provable) from any perspective: employee, employer or consumer.<p>What is the point of FMCG marketing people? Do they really serve a purpose in society or do they just funnel funds from the competitive process (which as a whole might be productive) into different hands, including their own. There are some positive externalities like television, but that kind of incidental value is hard to find meaning in.<p>How about all the lawyers playing zero sum games? Social media people for office supply companies? Paparazzi? Are reward programs offering blenders in exchange for credit card miles really necessary?<p>I think the point he&#x27;s making is somewhat valid, especially from a personal intuitive perspective. The wider question is can society work differently? Can we trade work for leisure? Can we find self definitions and motivation outside of work?
评论 #8561749 未加载
wallflowerover 10 years ago
Related: An epic Reddit answer to &#x27;Why Americans get so little vacation time&#x27;<p>Short answer: Communism lost<p><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/d8eiv/why_do_americans_get_so_little_vacation_time/c0ybdup" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;business&#x2F;comments&#x2F;d8eiv&#x2F;why_do_ameri...</a>
评论 #8561252 未加载
评论 #8563710 未加载
评论 #8561265 未加载
mathattackover 10 years ago
<i>The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them.</i><p>I just don&#x27;t buy this. If you view capitalists as evil, they are doing it to pocket money, not as some grand conspiracy to keep people busy. If it were economically possible to keep people busy in a capitalist society, inflation would be zero.
rgloverover 10 years ago
<i>The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them.</i><p>This has always bothered me, even before I was old enough to join the &quot;work force.&quot; I had a hunch back in the day and have subsequently confirmed it early in my career: working less promotes better, clearer thinking, and ultimately a higher volume of results (i.e. when I work less, I end up getting more done).<p>This is incredibly telling of our times:<p><i>Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinet-makers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Neither does the task really need to be done – at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow, they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets, and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities, that before long there’s endless piles of useless badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop and it’s all that anyone really does.</i><p>I encounter this more often than I&#x27;d like to admit. Brilliant, talented, positive people finding their core competencies squashed under meaningless political bullshit. I constantly shudder at the idea of what these people might accomplish if they were given the resources and freedom to do what they were actually good at.<p>I&#x27;ve been reading Freedom From the Known by Jiddu Krishnamurti and this one excerpt really speaks to this problem:<p><i>For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, `Tell me all about it - what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?&#x27; and we are satisfied with their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and empty. We are second-hand people. We have lived on what we have been told, either guided by our inclinations, our tendencies, or compelled to accept by circumstances and environment. We are the result of all kinds of influences and there is nothing new in us, nothing that we have discovered for ourselves; nothing original, pristine, clear.</i>
评论 #8561790 未加载
gillsover 10 years ago
Also, in the US, people are willing to work full time at whatever job will provide health insurance.
jongraehlover 10 years ago
Conclusion is not supported by what came before:<p>&gt; If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc) – and particularly its financial avatars – but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value.
edw519over 10 years ago
Let&#x27;s not forget about how much bullshit government adds to non-bullshit jobs...<p>My Typical 8 hour day<p>1979 to 2002 (before Sarbanes-Oxley):<p><pre><code> 7 hours: code 1 hour: overhead </code></pre> 2002 to 2014 (after Sarbanes-Oxley):<p><pre><code> 1 hour: insure rigorous Requirements documentation 1 hour: insure rigorous Test Plans (whether used or not) 1 hour: peer review (of devs I would have never hired) 1 hour: code review (for what peer review missed) 1 hour: answer auditors&#x27; questions 1 hour: status reports 1 hour: status meetings 55 minutes: bitch to boss 5 minutes: code</code></pre>
评论 #8561795 未加载
评论 #8561590 未加载
评论 #8561580 未加载
ownedthxover 10 years ago
I work 40 hours a week at a <i>minimum</i>, every week, and have always done so. I&#x27;m a programmer primarily, but also do other related things (build, devops, customer support). But if I have a week with nothing but programming, I will still work a minimum of 40 hours a week.<p>The idea that you can&#x27;t do more than 15-20 hours a week is not true.<p>I do love my job. Perhaps that&#x27;s why I work this much.<p>I admit that I have a hard time relating to this general idea I see over and over about the need to fill up time with non-work. Also, over the years, I&#x27;ve met my fair share of those who also work just as hard.
评论 #8563912 未加载
atmosxover 10 years ago
I like that fact that the decrease of working hours per day, is becoming a mainstream discussion. I&#x27;ve seen other articles popping up elsewhere the last couple of years. That&#x27;s good.
rwmjover 10 years ago
So why doesn&#x27;t competition push out the &quot;bullshit&quot; jobs? This article mentions that competition is supposed to fix it, isn&#x27;t fixing it, but doesn&#x27;t explain why.
评论 #8561774 未加载
evoloutionover 10 years ago
Choose your friends carefully, you never know when your life is going to land on HN: * Corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm * A poet in the past * Front man in an indie rock band in the past that his songs made it to the radio There shouldn&#x27;t be more than 10 people fitting the description... <i></i> Admits that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.<p>Btw great article!
jbogpover 10 years ago
From one of the comments at the bottom of the article:<p><a href="http://www.bullshitjob.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bullshitjob.com&#x2F;</a><p>Some of these are pretty amazing.
gohrtover 10 years ago
Previously on HN, when this article was originally published:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6236478" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6236478</a><p>On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs (<a href="http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strikemag.org&#x2F;bullshit-jobs&#x2F;</a>) 528 points by gu 351 comments
squozzerover 10 years ago
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I would say my job is to make money. With the additional condition of enjoying the liberty to spend the money, which is why I avoid lucrative but illegal activities, at least to the extent I can consciously avoid doing illegal things.
RVuRnvbM2eover 10 years ago
It&#x27;s a ridiculously widely recognised phenomenon. I immediately thought of this song: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6J7TUHDzC8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=N6J7TUHDzC8</a>
mrottenkolberover 10 years ago
I achieved the 15 hour week. I like to do 20 hours some weeks (I get paid the hour, so its attractive, but I really don&#x27;t have to). Note that I am not rich. Also I am young and healthy and don&#x27;t have kids.
GoldenHomerover 10 years ago
While we are on the subject of bullshit: <a href="https://github.com/bullgit/bullshit-job-titles" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;bullgit&#x2F;bullshit-job-titles</a>
sauereover 10 years ago
As long as the President&#x27;s success is measured by the unemployment rate, these jobs will exist.
JLB25over 10 years ago
Interesting article and a strong feeling that there is something there that we all know but we don&#x27;t say, declare to ourselves and to the others. So I think there another point to add here: everything manages to stick together not because of an not well explained hate for &#x27;real workers&#x27; (I can see that it exists, but how does it contribute to keep everyone in its place?).<p>On one hand it is the most stupid of all the answers: its&#x27; because of money, the salary that you get paid to do this pointless jobs.<p>And on the other hand it is because of something less clearly perceivable, yet profound and &#x27;democratized&#x27;: a part from the &#x27;real&#x27; jobs mentioned in the article - physical labor jobs, agriculture, health services - almost all the other workers are equated by the secret perception of being paid more instead of the value of their job, the value of their real work effort and contribution. But this perception alone won&#x27;t do the job. It works because it is matched by a counter-perception, almost as unmentionable: if most of the employees feel they manage to get paid more than what they do (not of what they deserve because this implies other personal, political, social, intellectual considerations), most of the employers do feel that are paying their employees less than what they contribute to the wealth of the company or organization, less of what their contribution&#x27;s value is.<p>I believe that this is at the parallel combination of these perceptions is, at least one, of the main reasons why everything keep staying the way it is, why we don&#x27;t work less.<p>What to do?<p>Organize the work differently. Start-ups have the potential to structure a division of labour, responsibilities and remuneration that provides a better sense of empowerment, equal contribution to the common aim of that the organization&#x2F;company has, fair returns from the effort done. It doesn&#x27;t last long thou. As soon as the start-up become institutionalized, e.g. direct control is lost over certain operations and processes, the company&#x2F;organization become bigger, certain part of the work done is captured only with quarterly reports or similar simplification, tales of the work done, the objective achieved, it tend to become as any other existing company, recreating that dual perception that I&#x27;ve mentioned before.<p>Bottom line is (probably): perception for perception, let&#x27;s ask more often and with less fear(?) to our colleagues, to the other people in general how much do they earn? what does really involve their job? It may sound a futile exercise but I believe that by communicating to each other, by spelling it out, we will play around with other possibilities, with alternative organizations and modes of labour.
squozzerover 10 years ago
I liked the illustration better when this story appeared in Strike! magazine.
gregorious_cover 10 years ago
^^
byEngineerover 10 years ago
I work at a large bank in the US. We build websites. Internal websites. The company employs maybe 300k people in the US alone. None of the websites gets more than 10 hits a day! There are 5 websites. And we have 40-50 people to support just that! If all these websites disappeared overnight there would be no difference to the bank. And to the society. The best part: the bank has been rescued by tax payer money. If it went bankrupt -- as it should have -- I would be working productively somewhere else. Unless &quot;somewhere&quot; else is also supported by the tax payer money and artificially cheap credit, FED rates at 0% full economic cycle now. The solution is more capitalism, not socialism. I.e. let them go bankrupt! This is what capitalism is all about. You take risks. You win, big payout! You loose, you go bankrupt! This is capitalism, not tax funded corporations. That&#x27;s socialism for the rich. But don&#x27;t call that capitalism, please! Interest rates at 0% for 7 years?! Set by whom? Capitalist free markets? Or socialist bureaucrats who know it all better?! Who sets the rates? Mr. Market or Ms. Yellen? Get rid of the FED too. You will see jobs like mine disappearing. And forcing me to do something more productive than slacking off for $120k &#x2F; year curtesy of the tax payer.<p>Capitalism in crisis is all about reallocating work force from unproductive work at looser companies to do something great at productive companies! That&#x27;s what bankruptcies are all about. Yes, my bank should be history long time ago. Its assets should be taken over by a bank that didn&#x27;t make the stupid mistakes. And smart people who avoided those mistakes. This is what the bankruptcy process is about. Then this new CEO that weathered 2008 crisis making his small bank winning party here and taking over assets of bankrupted banks -- would see that nonsense and fire half of the staff. So they can go do something productive! This is how it works in true capitalism. We don&#x27;t have it though because we believe in socialism. So yep, pay for your zombie bank (and my salary!) because the people who you voted into the office, didn&#x27;t let the markets work!
评论 #8562055 未加载
评论 #8561723 未加载
评论 #8563211 未加载
评论 #8563466 未加载
aaron695over 10 years ago
Lol<p>Take something everyone thinks and talks about (Like all childish thought games) put a crappy explanation on it and people buy in.<p>&gt; The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger<p>Seriously... and man didn&#x27;t land on the moon.<p>Conspiracy&#x27;s happen, but it&#x27;s about broken processes and complicated feedback.<p>This is a interesting topic, it&#x27;s a real shame people are fooled so easily by essays like this.
评论 #8562025 未加载
cylconover 10 years ago
what a bunch ob crap, only large super corporations can keep &quot;bullshit&quot; jobs. Otherwise the market corrects this.<p>Funny to see all the hn readers advocating for more welfare and central planning. Typical neckbeard communism.
spindritfover 10 years ago
How is this weak political agitation on top of HN? It reads like a paroody.<p><i>You’re an anthropology professor, what’s the ‘need’ for that?” (And indeed a lot of tabloid readers would take the existence of my job as the very definition of wasteful social expenditure.)</i><p>Yes, yes, if you disagree with our good professor here then you must be a tabloid-reading simpleton. A person of any sophistication would easily recognize the value of this largely fact-free critique of capitalism. Where capitalism is represented by the academia, the most competitive of industries.<p><i>Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments</i><p>The whole thing is nothing but ideological signalling.<p><i>if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market”</i><p><i>This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour</i><p><i>Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers</i><p>Let me just say (before I go back to reading Daily Mail and bashing teachers) that I can totally understand why he spent so much time thinking about bullshit jobs.
评论 #8561419 未加载
评论 #8561684 未加载