Bullshit Jobs

[Chad]

Love this article, as it really is demonstrated by what the retired on here are doing and what the future retired want to do. They/we all want to do something with meaning, but society doesn't let us. Unless, you ERE.

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

[workathome]

The website is down

[vivacious]

Worked for me. Seemed like a pretty good read. It got into some Keynes etc.

[Ego]

Yes! My little job could easily be done far better by a series of sensors, a computer that dispatches the people who actually do real work and a robot baby seal programmed to convince customers that someone actually cares about them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJq5PQZHU-I

Local laws and insurance underwriters require that my position exists.

Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.

Interestingly, if the system every actually got to the point where it was much more efficient, the first victim of that efficiency would be the trail-and-error process that created this one. Any trial that pushed the boundaries of the norm would be detected and eliminated by the current system before the results were realized. Change would lose its organic nature.

[riparian]

Well, y'all are mostly engineers and such, right? I wouldn't generalize that meaninglessness to everyone who's not ERE.

[workathome]

I agree, my job is complete bullshit. Great article, perfect for ERE reading.

[Felix]

Great article.

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. 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). But, of course, this is the sort of very problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

I've been deeply puzzled by this for quite some time.

I think the solution is that many of the new "pointless" jobs exist not for productivity, but for sales increases. It's a game theory problem. If one company employs a PR advisor and social media manager, they beat all the other companies in terms of sales. If all companies do this, it's back to zero, only now everyone has a large fleet of people who generate hot air that used to increase sales, but now just keeps them at level zero making the jobs pointless. Now the situation is that if you don't have these people, you lose sales. If everyone did it, it would be great, but if a single market participant did it, it would be detrimental to him. Prisoner's dilemma. So now we're stuck with it.

The same principle works in lobbyism and law, I think.

The rise in finance I explain to myself with deregulation, fraud, corruption and compound interest.

I haven't figured out a reason for a rise in administrative jobs, yet. Is there more to administer now? Are there legal requirements? Maybe the administration has taken over due to its position of power within the organization (similar dynamic to finance). Maybe to keep some focus on actual production with all those sales people, lawyers and lobbyists around.

I work at a research institution and in the introduction seminar for new workers, our HR spokesperson told everyone (all the new researchers) that administration is more important than research. We were, well, ... surprised.

So, the tail wagging the dog seems to become a reality more and more.

P.S.: I'd recommend Graeber's "Debt: The first 5000 years" to everyone.

[anomie]

re: @Felix
right on.

In my corner of world --

a student is taught by a teacher. how simple is that?


Yet Higher Education costs increase by 3-4 or more % / year, despite what people are able to pay.

One of the reasons is the ballooning of administrative costs in higher education.

Mutually assured escalation of student services as colleges/universities compete for student $'s. You want gourmet cafeteria? You want smaller dorms with private rooms with high-speed internet? Administration provides ....


Looking for sources for my anecdotal experiences:
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/ ... ml?id=2408

administration grew by over 2:1 vs teachers --

“Between 1993 and 2007,” they write, “the number of full-time administrators per 100 students at America’s leading universities grew by 39 percent, while the number of employees engaged in teaching, research, or service only grew by 18 percent.

[Chad]

I think the solution is that many of the new "pointless" jobs exist not for productivity, but for sales increases. It's a game theory problem. If one company employs a PR advisor and social media manager, they beat all the other companies in terms of sales. If all companies do this, it's back to zero, only now everyone has a large fleet of people who generate hot air that used to increase sales, but now just keeps them at level zero making the jobs pointless. Now the situation is that if you don't have these people, you lose sales. If everyone did it, it would be great, but if a single market participant did it, it would be detrimental to him. Prisoner's dilemma. So now we're stuck with it.

There is definitely some validity to this.

I haven't figured out a reason for a rise in administrative jobs, yet. Is there more to administer now? Are there legal requirements? Maybe the administration has taken over due to its position of power within the organization (similar dynamic to finance). Maybe to keep some focus on actual production with all those sales people, lawyers and lobbyists around.

Administrative jobs grow for multiple reasons. The three biggest appear to be the "one more report/form won't matter or is needed", the more people someone manages the more important they are, and managers are afraid to make any decisions without mounds of useless information, so they need useless people creating useless reports.

I work at a research institution and in the introduction seminar for new workers, our HR spokesperson told everyone (all the new researchers) that administration is more important than research. We were, well, ... surprised.

Of course the HR person said that, as they are part of the administration. It's kind of like when fans of a team say, "We won!" There is no "we." The team won. You just watched. At best, the administration is the front office for a team, but they still aren't the players.

The other odd thing with administrations is that they farm out a lot of the administrative work (paychecks, taxes, etc.), but continue to get bigger.

[Kriegsspiel]

Whoa, you found the biography of the last year of my life.

[secretwealth]

"I think the solution is that many of the new "pointless" jobs exist not for productivity, but for sales increases. It's a game theory problem"

I think I must be missing something. If a job increases sales, it's not pointless at all--in fact, it's very valuable for the employer!

[Felix]

I think I must be missing something. If a job increases sales, it's not pointless at all--in fact, it's very valuable for the employer!

It only does so when not everyone is doing it I tried to describe the dynamic of how it was rendered pointless. They don't increase sales when everyone does it.

[JohnnyH]

"working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organizing or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets"

Yep, I'd say 55-75% of my work time at work involves no work related work.

[Seneca]

I think I must be missing something. If a job increases sales, it's not pointless at all--in fact, it's very valuable for the employer!

It only does so when not everyone is doing it I tried to describe the dynamic of how it was rendered pointless. They don't increase sales when everyone does it.

If all businesses staff up a larger marketing department in response to one company doing it, the original company may lose the competitive advantage of that initiative. Losing that advantage doesn't mean they miss on the ultimate goal of increasing profits however and it is not a zero sum gain.

As an example, Apple today is starting to lose smartphone market share, but they are shipping more units than ever due to the larger overall market they and their competitors have created.

[seanbrenna]

Yup, this is a feeling I've had for all my working life. I think I am building the skills and knowledge to extract myself from this. Hope you all are as well!

[Felix]

As an example, Apple today is starting to lose smartphone market share, but they are shipping more units than ever due to the larger overall market they and their competitors have created.

Yes, but it means people spend their income on smartphones instead of other things.

An argument one could make is that the advertising is so good at making people miserable in their current state that they are willing to go into deeper debt. Then they have to work harder to pay it off later. Then it would actually increase the GDP and -in aggregate- not be zero sum.

Hm. Actually, I think it does.

Similarly, lobbying to keep people locked into increasing student loan debt and without pension also keeps them producing.

So one could argue that it is indirectly productive.

Still, it can probably feel like treading water or being an agent of evil.

If it is actually beneficial to human wellbeing is another question.

[Seneca]

As an example, Apple today is starting to lose smartphone market share, but they are shipping more units than ever due to the larger overall market they and their competitors have created.

Yes, but it means people spend their income on smartphones instead of other things.

An argument one could make is that the advertising is so good at making people miserable in their current state that they are willing to go into deeper debt. Then they have to work harder to pay it off later. Then it would actually increase the GDP and -in aggregate- not be zero sum....

We're tracking together here. In our current debt based system, it is critical we get that job and GDP growth too, so not only is it not zero sum to the company chasing profits, it is also not zero sum in support of the government's unfunded social program liabilities, our appalling student loan situation or the servicing of household debt payments.

The fact I don't like this reality or think it is an optimal way to run an economic system aside, it is our current state.

If it is actually beneficial to human wellbeing is another question.

Exactly, a different question.

I chose that example however, as opposed to say EVs, because I think smartphones are enabling a very positive strategic change to human wellbeing by allowing decoupling from a desk or even geographic location to participate in the global economy.

I know mine does, and I've seen the same in developing countries as well.

[Chad]

As an example, Apple today is starting to lose smartphone market share, but they are shipping more units than ever due to the larger overall market they and their competitors have created.

You are correct that Apple's industry is not zero sum, but other industries are (autos, PCs, etc.). These industries are basically stagnate, so any new position that would gain market share for one company would be nullified when the other companies added it. Plus, the idea that companies only employ "productive positions" just isn't true. Plenty of useless positions to cut.

[Felix]

We're tracking together here. In our current debt based system, it is critical we get that job and GDP growth too, so not only is it not zero sum to the company chasing profits, it is also not zero sum in support of the government's unfunded social program liabilities, our appalling student loan situation or the servicing of household debt payments.

The fact I don't like this reality or think it is an optimal way to run an economic system aside, it is our current state.

Yes, it is relevant to the system as it is. Keep people producing, keep then going into debt, make sure they pay taxes. GDP growth of a country is certainly beneficial to its government. (We have different opinions on the funding status of social programs, let's not go there here )

So, in terms of generating GDP growth for GDP growth's sake, advertising does play its part and as such keeps the system going - and growing.

I chose that example however, as opposed to say EVs, because I think smartphones are enabling a very positive strategic change to human wellbeing by allowing decoupling from a desk or even geographic location to participate in the global economy.

I know mine does, and I've seen the same in developing countries as well.

I have come to grudgingly accept smartphones as a beneficial development by now. Even have one myself.

But we are not talking about the benefits of smartphones here, but about the benefits of advertising. Examples like marketed cereals with funny animals on the packaging come to mind, which are more expensive to pay for the marketing and packaging. Diamonds are a nice example. Pet rocks. Greenwashing. Magic weight-loss pills. There are many examples which are hard to defend as beneficial.

But there is something more fundamental at work here. Marketing is central in maintaining consumer culture as the propaganda machine behind the system. It works to fit people into the system, adapt their motivations to it.

This talk comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNy9s5qR4i0

Also, adbusters. Advertising professionals, who have become wary of what they were working for and now produce spoof ads and get them on the air and in print. A way to deal with a bullshit job.

[brighteye]

Great article, thanks for sharing. It's so true. I laughed while reading it, and then it made me sad and furious at the same time.
And this:

"working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organizing or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets"

Yep, I'd say 55-75% of my work time at work involves no work related work.

Right on. Some days it's even more than 75%...