The LSE should be deeply embarassed that this person is one of their professors. His assumptions are incredibly juvenile.
On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
261–270 of 357 posts
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
The continued existence of lecturing, 4 decades or more after it's been shown to be a poor use of time? An article I recently read (written only 30 years ago) attributed a lot of this to the academic's ego enjoying the feel of being an expert, when a printed sheet of paper, written by someone else would have a bigger impact on the students attending the lecture.
Depends on level. I teach basic maths to adults and teenagers (the latter tend to be the ones at the back of the class in compulsory education). One of my big projects in the first part of the year (before the exams loom over the horizon) is to encourage students to read the textbook themselves . In the rare classes where this becomes accepted, I can use the lessons more like seminars and get the students moved up th…
1215? What's wrong with Euclid?
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#263I disagree that the answer is moral and political and that the "ruling class" sat down to decide most people should work bullshit jobs. The phenomenon is more elegantly explained by pure economics: as less time is expended extracting resources and producing things, more energy is absorbed by the zero-sum, gimmicky game of selling and marketing them. To give credit where it's due, I first saw this credible argument on…
If you think sales & marketing are a zero sum gimmick, you must not have encountered middle management. The fact that we pay these baby sitters so much money compounds our "need" for them.
could you please send me your status report? thanks!
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're discounting that most people really don't want to live on a boat. An alternative is living in the countryside, but most people don't want to live there either. It's not just materialism or a status symbol at play here, but the preferences of the majority of society pushing people into zero-sum. If people suddenly decided that living on a boat isn't that bad (not going to happen), then the price of dock…
From anecdotal evidence I don't think you're right. Every summer I speak to an average of three strangers a week that stroll by the harbour and ask about how to get a space, how to buy a boat, and how they can go about doing it. But very few people take the plunge. When I tell people how I live most of them are envious (some think I'm crazy too). I think what's keeping people from doing it is fear. Most people don't…
No, I do think he's right. They might be honestly curious about the details of living on a boat, but in the end not really that interested in pursuing it for themselves. Many think of it as something they might really like to try out for a year or two... tops. others, likely see the appeal but realize that it's not a realistic option for them (spouses, children, pets, etc.). If everyone wanted to live on a boat too, there is no way your costs would stay the same (slip costs would go through the roof).
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#265I find it cute that he thinks teaching is mostly not a bullshit job. apart from the first 4 years it is as bullshit as any of his other examples. He just fails to recognize that due to personal bias.
Not as bullshit when you think of it as daycare that has allowed the two parent working family to be possible. So while the parents may be off doing "bullshit" reasonably well-paying work, the "real work" of raising the next generation has been moved to teachers. The real reason "regular" people freak out when teachers strike is because they think they can't afford not being able to goto work.
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree with Zeteo's assessment - only thing I would add is that people shouldn't assume someone else'e job is 'bullshit' simply because they can't directly see or appreciate the value it creates. For example: in the case of corporate leadership, it is easy and appealing to suggest they aren't creating any direct value... i.e. fire the leadership and 'widgets' will still get made. The problem with this thinking…
> if you really want to 'reap the benefits' or our more productive society, you can work 15 hours starting today. The tradeoff is that you'll need to move to the middle of Colorado, buy a small plot of land, build your own house and purchase a straight edge razor. What if you owned the home you live in, though? Lately, I've become a bit obsessed with this idea. The reason the 'wage slave' concept exists is that most…
The book you are looking for is "Mortgage Free!" by Rob Roy. He shows you how to go this route ie. buying cheap property and methodically building a house as you have the money to do it (and how to hunker down when you don't). Also, read Walden
I took a slightly different tack, but also own my own home outright without ever having had a mortgage Algorithm is: -Save up enough money to have 1/2 the value of the worst house you can find in a neighborhood that isn't too bad -Use that money to purchase the house using a line of credit backed by the house you're buying. You are allowed by the bank to take out a line of credit on a house you are buying equal to 1/2 the tax assessment or 70% of a formal valuation -Put all your income directly against that line of credit. No maximum payments or other mortgagey bullshit to deal with. You must be disciplined in order to do this effectively. No buying toys! -Spend all your free time renovating in ways that will increase the value of the house: Kitchens, landscaping, new flooring, paint, trim, siding etc -Look for deals on properties (esp. bank repos) so that you can leapfrog up to better properties while still managing on the line of credit. I paid off the previous place before moving up, but I'm sure you could figure out ways to move up before then
Voila. I have owned my own house for the past 7 years. Only took me 3 to pay off my first place, and another 2 to pay off the next, despite costing twice as much Current place is a 1850sqft split level on 1 acre of land with a 30'x50' 2 level shop. 5 minute drive to city centre
Full Disclosure: -I live in a relatively rural area in western Canada. Homes now cost $300-500k. I got mine as a) a steal from a couple that needed a quick sale and b) a bank repo I jumped on the minute it hit the market -We are a family of 5 with a stay at home mom. This is significant in that there is no second income, but all meals are home cooked which saves huge dollars. Also no child care costs -My income not huge, mid to high 5 figures range -I started off with about $50,000 I had saved up prior to marriage -This adventure began at 25yo. I am now 35. I've been mortgage and debt free first at 28 and then again at 31 -The whole thing works best with low interest rates (obviously). I negotiated my line of credit at prime -I had access to tools, know-how and traded labour from relatives (mostly my Dad). I only bought or rented about half the tools I needed -Working in the lumber industry meant access to cheaper lumber -Personal frugality and a frugal wife were huge accelerants. -Being a car salesman's son probably endowed me with better negotiating ability than most
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#267> Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we’ve collectively chosen the latter.
Those toys just create a high tech low life paradox. The problem is the iron law of wages: "real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker."
This minimum is based on housing costs, health insurance, tax, and saving for pensions. The main toy, a car, fuel, and car insurance, is often a requirement for working, because of stupid zoning laws. The cost of food is nearly negligible, compared to the above costs.
If you look at places that have high wages and low tax, then you can expect high housing costs. So there will be always some days left end of the month, when a typical family runs in danger of running out of money for food and the like.
So regardless how much you work, the land lord or the bank in case of house ownership, will eat the big part, forcing the average family to work 8 at least hours.
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#268On the phenomenon of bullshit articles.... His thesis is the ideology of someone young and niave. I can assure you that no company employs anyone unless they have to, and/or they see a return on their investment (ie payroll) in that person. He may think a corporate law job is "bullshit" but I imagine that the law firm's clients value and rely on the collective work that this person and his colleagues are doing.
You obviously never worked at a startup company during the dot-com boom.
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#269I liked the article but there is no conundrum here: > the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people Yes, people are not paid in accordance to the direct tangible benefit their work brings. Salaries are broadly determined by the same laws of supply and demand that determine prices for other stuff. Tube workers are not…
>I'd argue that if you replaced school teachers with babysitters, the only catastrophe would be all those damaged egos.
The keyword you used is "replaced", not "do away with". Actually I think an argument could be made that teacher pay does already treat them somewhat as babysitters. Babysitters would likely be more expensive on an hour * kids basis than teachers given current babysitter rates.
Anyways, you are right, wages are determined by "supply and demand", unfortunately collective bargaining is seen as a bad thing, whereas I see it just as another way for a truly "free market" to communicate the value of a job.
Re: On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
The continued existence of lecturing, 4 decades or more after it's been shown to be a poor use of time? An article I recently read (written only 30 years ago) attributed a lot of this to the academic's ego enjoying the feel of being an expert, when a printed sheet of paper, written by someone else would have a bigger impact on the students attending the lecture.
It seems self-evident that lecturing is a hugely inefficient and ineffective way of teaching people. But I don't think it's about stroking the academic's ego as much as maintaining academic jobs. Remove the unnecessarily labour-intensive lecturing component and, unfortunately, it's far harder to justify large state subsidies and tuition fees that pay for universities. Universities are strongly incentivised to continu…
"It seems self-evident that lecturing is a hugely inefficient and ineffective way of teaching people."
Is it possible that only poor lecturers give hugely inefficient and ineffective lectures?
It seems to me the point of lectures isn't to transmit information - that can be done using a book. Rather it is, or ought to be, a demonstration of how a master deals with a problem or answers a question.