[josephkay]

From a left-wing magazine:
http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

This shouldn't be much of a surprise for RVF readers, but it's interesting to see this come from the radical left.

Quote:

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. And these numbers do not even reflect on all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones.

These are what I propose to call “bullshit jobs.”

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.

The author and commenters do not explore gender discrepancies in useful/useless jobs or the fact that people have to work so much at make-work jobs because the price of housing has been bid up so high. My own thinking about these issues came about from gaming professional women who had the attention spans of cocker spaniels and were working either in HR or PR.

[JimNortonFan]

(08-19-2013 05:08 PM)josephkay Wrote:  

From a left-wing magazine:
http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

This shouldn't be much of a surprise for RVF readers, but it's interesting to see this come from the radical left.

Quote:

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. And these numbers do not even reflect on all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones.

These are what I propose to call “bullshit jobs.”

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.

The author and commenters do not explore gender discrepancies in useful/useless jobs or the fact that people have to work so much at make-work jobs because the price of housing has been bid up so high. My own thinking about these issues came about from gaming professional women who had the attention spans of cocker spaniels and were working either in HR or PR.

Truly great article. Must read for all.

[Sparks123]

"Decades ago, work wasn't about survival, but about pride and principle. Without work—whether it be inside or outside the home, in an office, or the backyard—life had no meaning. We often mistake the hollowness from lack of constructive activity for boredom. That’s a crock; it's just our soul wanting to fill up that bucket of whatever we love to fill every day. It's why so many men croak after they retire. When you're no longer filling up that hole, you end up in one, under a gravestone and freshly-picked flowers." - Greg Gutfeld

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...OUT-TO-DRY

[Sonsowey]

"Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it."

"through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, 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."

[eradicator]

[T and A Man]

Talk about not seeing the woods from the trees...

Quote:

In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen.

And it doesn't... durrhhh. So it goes to say this is happening because we aren't capitalist.

Leave the capitalists in charge and the bullshit jobs won't come to creation. It is the socialist influence here that is leading to bullshit jobs and a feminised education system

Thus we have emasculated boys growing up to be men nowhere fulfilling their potential and leading fulfilling lives in STEM.

Back to capitalist intent, (human) resources are allocated to where they are most valuable.

Today, some are (mis)allocated to assuage the feelings of women.

[Basil Ransom]

This is one of those cases where partisans of both sides, both the right and the left, will get it wrong.

Government policy is responsible for much of these bullshit jobs. More pointless or harmful laws means more resources expended to meet them. Especially when regulations are used, instead of taxes. Lawyers and police forces fit in here. Administrators in education too.

Even in a free market though, as the article mentions, bullshit jobs proliferate. Eg, Coca Cola and Pepsi advertising accounts - they're waging a perpetual war against each other no thanks to the government. I've long thought a tax on advertising, or at least making advertising a non-deductible corporate expense, a wise decision. Ads are repugnant and are usually a waste of money, when viewed from a societal perspective.

It's also the classic agency problem - the people who run the business don't necessarily own the business. Owners and managers have different interests. The owner may want maximum profits, while the managers want a large kingdom to run and higher salaries. In government, it's even worse, because there is no real owner to begin with, nor any profit motive to chasten behavior. If you have someone smart running the show, this is mitigated, but that's of course not always the case.

[Bacchus]

(08-19-2013 05:08 PM)josephkay Wrote:  

This shouldn't be much of a surprise for RVF readers, but it's interesting to see this come from the radical left.

Why is it surprising to see this from the left? The stereotype is that they're the dirty hippies who don't like to work. It'd be a lot more shocking if some right-wing mouthpiece declared that all the paper-pushing office jobs are bullshit. The right typically lampoons academia, bureaucracy, and non-profits as bullshit, but, to them, corporate America is holy and beyond reproach. However, working for a large company is no less pointless to your cubicle jockey.

These bullshit jobs wouldn't be so bad if people didn't base their identities on them and even seek fulfillment from them. But it's a natural consequence of spending the majority of their waking hours involved in something related to their occupation. These people need to get a fucking hobby, or a mistress. But members of the working class typically have more leisure time than a standard corporate drone.

[Gold Doubloon]

Great read. Thanks for the link

[MrXY]

Where does this leftist think the "administrative sector" that he complains about largely comes from?

It has been produced by the enormous number of laws, taxes and regulations impose on the populace by the mega -state

And who advocates for all those laws,taxes and regulations? Liberals and leftist do.

So this stupid ass is bitching about negative consequences of the very policies he supports.

[Damedius]

(08-19-2013 10:02 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Where does this leftist think the "administrative sector" that he complains about largely comes from?

It has been produced by the enormous number of laws, taxes and regulations impose on the populace by the mega -state

And who advocates for all those laws,taxes and regulations? Liberals and leftist do.

So this stupid ass is bitching about negative consequences of the very policies he supports.

Hey your logic, interferes with my socialist dream.

[Hencredible Casanova]

This is one of the most thought-provoking articles I've read in a long time, and that's saying something. Great post. +1

[The Beast1]

These BS jobs are a perfect example of the market working.

We as a society have placed a value on (and through government meddling) non value creating entities like finance, HR, entertainment, etc.

A true capitalist society wouldn't allow this to happen. What we are seeing here is when the rich try to manipulate the system to become richer. They stupidly forget that you really can't game the system log term for your benefit. Eventually something breaks somewhere and a revolution occurs or in our case the government declares war to spur investment.

It depends on how bad it really gets. Either way, our economy is unsustainable with the current petrodollar setup.

[lurker]

(08-19-2013 10:02 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Where does this leftist think the "administrative sector" that he complains about largely comes from?

It has been produced by the enormous number of laws, taxes and regulations impose on the populace by the mega -state

And who advocates for all those laws,taxes and regulations? Liberals and leftist do.

So this stupid ass is bitching about negative consequences of the very policies he supports.

Liberals and leftists advocate for laws, taxes, and regulations to protect liberal causes. Conservatives and rightists advocate for laws, taxes, and regulations to protect conservative causes. We get caught between the two by constant mission creep.

[Sonsowey]

Arguing that "true capitalist societies wouldn't let this happen" is ridiculous. America is one of the most capitalist countries ever. If you think we're too left wing, you're more right-wing than just about any other country on the earth. Save perhaps Singapore.

It's like a Socialist arguing that, in spite of all the failed Socialist states, "Real socialism" would be paradise, but all these states that tried it didn't do it right.

[Therapsid]

(08-20-2013 11:00 AM)lurker Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:02 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Where does this leftist think the "administrative sector" that he complains about largely comes from?

It has been produced by the enormous number of laws, taxes and regulations impose on the populace by the mega -state

And who advocates for all those laws,taxes and regulations? Liberals and leftist do.

So this stupid ass is bitching about negative consequences of the very policies he supports.

Liberals and leftists advocate for laws, taxes, and regulations to protect liberal causes. Conservatives and rightists advocate for laws, taxes, and regulations to protect conservative causes. We get caught between the two by constant mission creep.

But notice that the business community seems much more capable at getting tax rates lowered than they are at rolling back this type of excessive regulation.

The regulatory state has continuously expanded over the decades, particularly since the late 60's. It runs across the board - EPA, OSHA, FDA, EEOC regulations, etc. But the same is not true for tax rates, which have been periodically cut and then raised again.

I think the explanation takes us beyond the right-left paradigm. My sense is that all rich people stand to gain from lower tax rates, and since most Americans do as well, it's easy to form coalitions to achieve this goal. Hence our massive federal deficit and debt.

But on the other hand, the biggest corporations may actually gain to some extent by the regulations you're referring to. How's that? Because the amount they spend dealing with these regs, through these "bullshit" administrative jobs, is a relative drop in the bucket as far as they're concerned. But on the other hand, these regulations are extremely costly and onerous for smaller businesses.

What this means is that regulations can act as a barrier to entry to new market entrants. The major corporations are market incumbents that, to a certain extent, can benefit from a background level of regulation that makes it difficult for new businesses to scale up to become competitors. This is also why professionals often support licensing requirements, because once they've established themselves as a hairdresser or interior designer it benefits them to put up a barrier to new entrants into the industry in the form of useless licensing laws. Business regulations may serve the same function. Unfortunately, the public suffers and the economy grows much more slowly as a result.

[The Beast1]

(08-20-2013 11:11 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Arguing that "true capitalist societies wouldn't let this happen" is ridiculous. America is one of the most capitalist countries ever. If you think we're too left wing, you're more right-wing than just about any other country on the earth. Save perhaps Singapore.

It's like a Socialist arguing that, in spite of all the failed Socialist states, "Real socialism" would be paradise, but all these states that tried it didn't do it right.

Ironically, it's not. America is far from a capitalistic country.

If you want a good example of capitalism at work, take a look at China. They are capitalists in everything but name. They have absolutely no standards on health, safety, and the like. Just take a look at their food scares and environmental records.

Regulation is important, but the trick is finding the "red pill" middle ground than swinging left or right for strong armed knee jerk policies.

We can thank our baby blobbers for screwing up a system that kept it in check.

[Samseau]

(08-19-2013 08:22 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Talk about not seeing the woods from the trees...

Quote:

In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen.

And it doesn't... durrhhh. So it goes to say this is happening because we aren't capitalist.

Leave the capitalists in charge and the bullshit jobs won't come to creation. It is the socialist influence here that is leading to bullshit jobs and a feminised education system

Thus we have emasculated boys growing up to be men nowhere fulfilling their potential and leading fulfilling lives in STEM.

Back to capitalist intent, (human) resources are allocated to where they are most valuable.

Today, some are (mis)allocated to assuage the feelings of women.

Nailed it. The writer of this article is too blinded by his ideology to respond to even the most basic of logical operations - modus tollens.

I didn't read more than the opening paragraph; anyone who fails to draw the connection just isn't worth the time.

[Sonsowey]

(08-20-2013 11:22 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

Ironically, it's not. America is far from a capitalistic country.

If you want a good example of capitalism at work, take a look at China. They are capitalists in everything but name. They have absolutely no standards on health, safety, and the like. Just take a look at their food scares and environmental records.

Well at this point I have no idea what you consider Capitalist.

Much of the industry in China is state-run. The state is not an impartial arbiter between private individuals, or an organization that only enforces privately agreed-to contracts. The state has a hand in just about everything. They give preferential loans to state-backed industries, the incredible difficulty of getting hundreds of permits for everything dissapears for approved industries etc.

People in China are not allowed to move freely between the country side and city. There is mass "illegal immigration" to China's cities from its countryside.

China is more Mercantalist than Capitalist. The means of production in China are certainly not 100% private by any means. People plugged into the state do certainly profit, but people becoming rich happens in every society, not just capitalist ones.

[Basil Ransom]

"Regulation is important, but the trick is finding the "red pill" middle ground than swinging left or right for strong armed knee jerk policies."

Regulations are not the only option for regulating behavior; taxes and lawsuits are another option. The advantage of the latter two is that they make transparent the costs of these regulations and thus beget more opposition. They also allow us to more clearly assess if the costs are worth their benefits. As someone else noted, taxes wax and wane, but regulations only wax. If the government needs money, better to collect it by taxing undesirable activities like pollution than desirable activities like labor.

Contrary to popular belief, lawsuits can be a very effective means of both protecting consumers and minimizing unnecessary government intervention. Richard Epstein writes a strong defense of such a model in his book Simple Rules For A Complex World. And he is a staunch libertarian.

[josephkay]

(08-20-2013 05:48 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Regulations are not the only option for regulating behavior; taxes and lawsuits are another option. The advantage of the latter two is that they make transparent the costs of these regulations and thus beget more opposition. They also allow us to more clearly assess if the costs are worth their benefits. As someone else noted, taxes wax and wane, but regulations only wax. If the government needs money, better to collect it by taxing undesirable activities like pollution than desirable activities like labor.

I agree with you about taxes, but I'm not sure if the costs of lawsuits are that transparent. In practice, there will be some sort of precedent for sexual harassment or employment discrimination, lawyers will draft a policy, and then the business will hire compliance officers. Effectively, it will have the same effect as regulations.

Also, lawsuits will create a need for businesses to indemnify themselves. I suspect the growth of bullshit jobs stems from the need to have a separate hierarchy (be it HR or whatever) that can be challenged in a lawsuit rather than a specific employee. Of course, my suspicion is based entirely on The Office and a couple of articles in Fast Company I read after hitting on HR ditzes.

[Basil Ransom]

(08-20-2013 06:19 PM)josephkay Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 05:48 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Regulations are not the only option for regulating behavior; taxes and lawsuits are another option. The advantage of the latter two is that they make transparent the costs of these regulations and thus beget more opposition. They also allow us to more clearly assess if the costs are worth their benefits. As someone else noted, taxes wax and wane, but regulations only wax. If the government needs money, better to collect it by taxing undesirable activities like pollution than desirable activities like labor.

I agree with you about taxes, but I'm not sure if the costs of lawsuits are that transparent. In practice, there will be some sort of precedent for sexual harassment or employment discrimination, lawyers will draft a policy, and then the business will hire compliance officers. Effectively, it will have the same effect as regulations.

Also, lawsuits will create a need for businesses to indemnify themselves. I suspect the growth of bullshit jobs stems from the need to have a separate hierarchy (be it HR or whatever) that can be challenged in a lawsuit rather than a specific employee. Of course, my suspicion is based entirely on The Office and a couple of articles in Fast Company I read after hitting on HR ditzes.

Yeah, that's a good point. Epstein, as a staunch libertarian, doesn't support most laws, so the grounds for filing a lawsuit would be greatly diminished anyhow. Eg, sexual and racial discrimination by a private employer would not be offenses for which you could sue.

Lawsuits give more visibility to the issues which is good, but like you pointed out, it's still subject to laws that are at times questionable. So bad laws, not to mention bad judicial decisions, will beget frivolous lawsuits.

[cardguy]

Haven't had a chance to read the article yet. But I noticed it is written by David Graeber.

The guy is brilliant. He wrote the following book, and it is the best book I have read in the past couple of years:

http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000...1612191290

[cardguy]

Really enjoyed the article!

Here is a much longer piece by David Graeber from last year.

The second paragraph of the article gives a flavour of what it is about.

Quote:

Where, in short, are the flying cars? Where are the force fields, tractor beams, teleportation pods, antigravity sleds, tricorders, immortality drugs, colonies on Mars, and all the other technological wonders any child growing up in the mid-to-late twentieth century assumed would exist by now? Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge—like cloning or cryogenics—ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them?

http://thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars

[Tex Pro]

Good article.

Most "consultants" have jobs that could be described as bullshit. I imagine that some of the growth of bullshit jobs is due to the ability of people to bullshit each other about the need for constant improvement. In the case of consultants, they convince a company that they can fix their problem, and the company agrees and the consultants go to work. Whether or not they solve the problem is secondary to the fact that the company management can now say "We've got someone working on the problem."

Lobbyist is also a bullshit job, but unlike consultants, their bullshit job is a creation of regulations and government. The lobbyist exists solely to get companies or groups favorable treatment by the government. That is it. It is a indirect way of paying a bribe since instead of paying politicians directly, you pay a lobbyist and he or she gets politicians to give you a favorable hearing.

Another bullshit job is that done by corporate lawyers. They exist in such great numbers because of regulations and laws that are designed to be arcane and hard to interpret. Most young corporate lawyers are nothing more than glorified clerks, doing a bunch of mundane tasks and trying to bill as many hours as possible for these mundane tasks.

Hell, even I used to work in a sort-of bullshit job. I used to work as a financial statement auditor for a large accounting firm. The work I did was largely useless since all I ever did was re-perform the work of the accounting department on a test or analytical basis to make sure the financials were prepared correctly. I imagine in the future an independent third-party computer application (with weak AI) will do this work by continuously auditing the entries and financials that are created by the accounting department.