Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

libcom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#141

Post by personZ »

crdoconnor wrote: post #136
edw519 wrote: post #66

Let's not forget about how much bullshit government adds to non-bullshit jobs... My Typical 8 hour day 1979 to 2002 (before Sarbanes-Oxley): 7 hours: code 1 hour: overhead 2002 to 2014 (after Sarbanes-Oxley): 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…

Sarbanes Oxley was created to prevent executives from looting their own companies (a la Enron) and then feigning ignorance and blaming their underlings when everything blew up. The reason why it seems to be ridiculously onerous is because it gives the government the power to slam execs in jail if they do not have sufficient control over the company. It's executive bullshit that ruined your day, which is caused by exe…

Has it worked? I'm not supporting any opposition to SOX, however we all know of many processes that offer no real checks or value, but we have to do it...just because why not, you're getting paid for it. In the case of SOX and the like, the argument can be "well everyone else has to do the same illusion of control work, so the drag is similar".

Most businesses are filled with processes that everyone knows are done for absolutely no value to anyone, but we do them anyways and they absolutely sap our soul.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#142

Post by sklogic »

dognotdog wrote: post #117
byEngineer wrote: post #108

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…

Don't take it out on socialism! Under those principles, the banks either would not have existed in this form in the first place, or been allowed to go bankrupt just as you suggest. What happened with the bank bailout was pure capitalism, the banks simply bought the government!

In fact, large corporate entities are nearly as wasteful and inefficient as the socialist bureaucratic state-controlled monsters from the USSR. Looks like key here is in being monstrous, not in the underlying ideology.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#144

Post by waterlesscloud »

ams6110 wrote: post #86
jug6ernaut wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not going to deny anything you said, its almost 100% true. But I believe your missing an important "fact"(maybe). That is its not really physically/physiologically/mentally possible to put in 40 hours of true "work". Not consistently anyways. So as much as it is we not truly putting in 40 hours, its the entire effort to be available for 40 hours IMO that you are getting paid for.

It is possible and commonplace in jobs where you physically work. Construction, any of the trades, factory work, food service... if you work 40 hours you have actually worked very close to 40 hours. There isn't any real opportunity to slack off or stand around in those jobs. Office jobs, yeah. Many of those are bullshit jobs.

Having worked construction jobs, a lot of it is waiting. Waiting for someone else to finish their job, waiting for materials to arrive, etc. While it could sometimes be non-stop (once what you were waiting for is done, now someone is waiting on you), even then you'd pace yourself. No one goes all out for 16 hours.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#145

Post by crdoconnor »

personZ wrote: post #141
crdoconnor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarbanes Oxley was created to prevent executives from looting their own companies (a la Enron) and then feigning ignorance and blaming their underlings when everything blew up. The reason why it seems to be ridiculously onerous is because it gives the government the power to slam execs in jail if they do not have sufficient control over the company. It's executive bullshit that ruined your day, which is caused by exe…

Has it worked? I'm not supporting any opposition to SOX, however we all know of many processes that offer no real checks or value, but we have to do it...just because why not, you're getting paid for it. In the case of SOX and the like, the argument can be "well everyone else has to do the same illusion of control work, so the drag is similar". Most businesses are filled with processes that everyone knows are done fo…

Unfortunately it's not enforced. Obama could slam half of the CEOs of Wall Street in jail with Sarbanes Oxley violations for wilfully looting their own firms exactly as was done to Enron, but he made an executive decision not to (a quick glance at who pays Clinton's $500,000 post presidential speaking fees might give a hint as to why).

Unfortunately the lack of any real enforcement means that it hasn't been all that successful.

That doesn't mean it's a bad law.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#146

Post by auganov »

furyg3 wrote: post #48

While there's a lot to debate in the article, kudos to Graeber for talking about a taboo. White-collar employees 'work' (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's inebriated cocktail party confessions match my own discussions with friends. Howe…

Only having a few productive hours during a day does not imply even distribution. You go even further and softly assume it's the first X hours that are productive. Doesn't sound likely.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#147

Post by waterlesscloud »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #138
shkkmo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the physical jobs also require a lot of critical thought. There is a reason why accident rates go up significanly the more hours people are forced to work. The difference is not that office jobs require more critical thought, but that physical jobs tend to produce actual value, and tend to produce value that is more easily measured.

It is ultimately very satisfying to see your complete roof, new shingles neatly laid across 5000 square feet. Or your plowed field ready for the planter, 80 acres of potential fertility. Even a half-acre neatly mowed. I don't know if it beats a library debugged and turning over 50,000 calls per second, but at least you can look at the other ones, see the whole expanse of what you accomplished laid out under the sun.

Yep, that was definitely the great satisfaction of construction work- seeing what you'd done at the end of the day. It's worth a lot more than many might expect.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#148

Post by aaron695 »

Lol

Take something everyone thinks and talks about (Like all childish thought games) put a crappy explanation on it and people buy in.

> The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger

Seriously... and man didn't land on the moon.

Conspiracy's happen, but it's about broken processes and complicated feedback.

This is a interesting topic, it's a real shame people are fooled so easily by essays like this.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#149

Post by waterlesscloud »

dognotdog wrote: post #131
byEngineer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tea Party members voted against bank bailouts. Not democrats, not old-republicans. My point is, yes, you can buy democrats and some republicans to vote in favor of more government spending. But you apparently can't buy them all to do it. During cold war you could try to buy Moscow communists as much as you wanted so they allowed you open bank branch in USSR, but this would never happen. You can try buy guys like Ron…

How can the voters exert punishment when who's even running for office is determined by the amount of money available for campaigning? Even disregarding direct corporate sponsorship, the rich who mostly contribute are still affiliated with the industry & finance sector. Average Joe can vote for puppet A or puppet B. People like Ron Paul, with firm principles, and the means to finance themselves despite sizable opposi…

There's nothing stopping you the voter from voting for anyone running, even the person with no monetary support. The fact that you vote for one of the people with the most ads is your failing, not the system's.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#150

Post by byEngineer »

dognotdog wrote: post #131
byEngineer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tea Party members voted against bank bailouts. Not democrats, not old-republicans. My point is, yes, you can buy democrats and some republicans to vote in favor of more government spending. But you apparently can't buy them all to do it. During cold war you could try to buy Moscow communists as much as you wanted so they allowed you open bank branch in USSR, but this would never happen. You can try buy guys like Ron…

How can the voters exert punishment when who's even running for office is determined by the amount of money available for campaigning? Even disregarding direct corporate sponsorship, the rich who mostly contribute are still affiliated with the industry & finance sector. Average Joe can vote for puppet A or puppet B. People like Ron Paul, with firm principles, and the means to finance themselves despite sizable opposi…

> How can the voters exert punishment when who's even running for office is determined by the amount of money available for campaigning?

There are a few issues I have with this statement, hence I decided to slice your post. I hope it is ok. Here is what I can't agree on: 1. From the very sentence above my understanding is that you notice something very important here: is it that in your opinion democracy doesn't work? You see this point you make isn't about capitalism. It's all about Democracy. Your claim here is that (sorry for vulgar interpretation): democracy doesn't work because I see elections after elections that voters vote for guys with most money for the campaign. But that's issue with democracy. Not capitalism. As long as money exists, rich&poor exist -- democracy won't be perfect. I take different view than that on this. I think you need more than just money to kind of "cheat" in democracy. You need stupid populous too. You need dumb people who care just about 6-packs and entitlements. So whoever promises them the most for the vote casted, gets elected. And then that gets funded by cheap credit, forever low interest rates (FED) and public spending. No wonder both parties do the same. This is late stages of democracy though. Not issue with capitalism. Last time I checked capitalism worked fantastic for a country - namely China -- but without the fallacies of democracy. 2. You are not the only one who notices that. US Government noticed that as well. And compared to China, it seems democracy and capitalism aren't as effective as authoritarian system and capitalism. It's not only China. Look at South-East Asia in general. If you ask, why we have more militarization of police, huge prison population, NSA eavesdropping, etc, etc -- it's all about the elites in the US seeing on the example of China that democracy doesn't really work. 3. Another issue with the statement: would you voted for Hitler given he had the most money in elections in 1933 ? Right, democracy isn't idiot-proof. That's the real problem with it. You can't really let 6-pack-joe voting, that's idiotic notion. Again, nothing to do with capitalism.

>Add to that the fact that no ordinary citizen directly voted for the bailouts, how can you blame this on the voter? The problem is not the voter, but the system.

Democratic system that is. Ordinary citizen not knowing how to vote. Poor idiots. Almost like Jews voting for NSDAP. (Sorry, couldn't help myself). Your disbelieve in American voters is mind blowing! The distrust in democracy horrifying!

EDIT: voted voting ; stop help

Post reply on HN