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

161–170 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#161

Post by facepalm »

kefka wrote: post #24
facepalm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it also the responsibility of the individual to gain skills that are valuable? I don't think what you describe is true for Software Developers in Sillicon Valley, for example. How much vacation do Software Developers in the Valley usually get?

The Silicon Valley is not indicative of jobs in the US. What some developer there gets has little/no bearing on what happens elsewhere. You also did not argue the core assertion that the employer-employee contract is heavily skewed to the employer. That has been true for the last 30 years. Productivity has made great inroads, yet pay and benefits have dropped significantly. So yes, this is a government issue. The emp…

Still, how much vacation time do Sillicon Valley developers get? If they also only get two weeks, it would invalidate the theory that people get no vacation because they are so much under pressure to not lose their jobs.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#162

Post by nl »

jug6ernaut wrote: post #67
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…

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.

I've worked agricultural jobs. We worked 8 hours a day, with a 15 minute "smoko" break after 2 hours, 1/2 hour lunch break after 4 hours, and another 15 minute break after 6. (This is in Australia, and was these were the award conditions)

Except when we were on breaks we were continually working.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#163

Post by cptskippy »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #144
ams6110 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sounds surprisingly like my job with the exception that sometimes I do actually go all out for 16 hours.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#164

Post by thaumasiotes »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #51
ilamont wrote: post #40

Reading this, I was reminded of the "B Ark" from Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy : (1) The B Ark is technically named "Golgafrincham Ark Fleet, Ship B". 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.…

I hate that particular joke because of how it so casually blames the victim. Awful jobs exist in the system and people are crammed into them by economic force.

B Ark jobs aren't awful jobs, though.

A chinese woman once started talking to me in a bakery, saying she wanted to practice her english. She'd spent time in Australia and recently come back to China to look for a job.

"What kind of job are you looking for?" I ask.

"I want to get a job in an office."

When "working in an office" is the height of your ambition, a B Ark job is as good as things get. If you're looking for awful jobs people get crammed into by economic force, look at obviously-productive C Ark jobs, like being a miner or a peasant.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#165

Post by baggachipz »

shkkmo wrote: post #139
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…

I was always sad the the Tea Party and the Occupy movement never managed to figure out that they were on the same side...

Let's be honest here: Racism got in the way of that. The Tea Party started very differently from where it ended up.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#166

Post by tedks »

padobson wrote: post #158
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whenever I walk through a Home Depot, I think "Man, the people that use this stuff are really MAKING things." Inevitably, my next thought is, "And a place like Home Depot could never operate without software making it work behind the scenes."

Home Depot existed long before software.

It'll exist long after software, too.

Remember that we live in a bubble.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#167

Post by saalweachter »

padobson wrote: post #158
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whenever I walk through a Home Depot, I think "Man, the people that use this stuff are really MAKING things." Inevitably, my next thought is, "And a place like Home Depot could never operate without software making it work behind the scenes."

Whenever I walk through a Home Depot, I think "This building is full of houses."

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#168

Post by LordKano »

shkkmo wrote: post #139
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…

I was always sad the the Tea Party and the Occupy movement never managed to figure out that they were on the same side...

I'm not sure if I agree with that assessment but I do think that they have the same enemy.

The collusion between big business and big government is the root of the problem that they both rail against.

The Tea Party focuses on the government part and Occupy focused on the business part. They'd be a lot more effective if they focused on their common ground.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#169

Post by rakoo »

crdoconnor wrote: post #121
rakoo wrote: post #44

> The answer clearly isn’t economic 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: - In order to live you need money - In order to obtain money you need to work (except for the lucky too few) - Therefore, work needs to exist to provide people with money, to the point of creating "useless" jobs if needs be How are…

This is preferable to Basic Income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee For the following reasons: * It it proven and was highly successful during the previous depression. * We actually do have a lot of infrastructure which needs rebuilding and projects which would make all of our lives better (high speed rail, mission to mars, etc.) * People actuall…

> People actually like to work - to feel useful.

There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. I think it's completely wrong, people (most of them) will continue to work; the huge difference is that they will not do it for the money, but for the actual effect it has. Your example shows it. You can also ask yourselves if chefs, musicians, programmers, mechanics would just grab the money and stay home; I don't believe so. Only those who do their job purely for revenues will stop... At least, that's my prediction (and hope). In other words, useless jobs (as in, not useful for others) will vanish.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#170

Post by JoeAltmaier »

rakoo wrote: post #169
crdoconnor wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is preferable to Basic Income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee For the following reasons: * It it proven and was highly successful during the previous depression. * We actually do have a lot of infrastructure which needs rebuilding and projects which would make all of our lives better (high speed rail, mission to mars, etc.) * People actuall…

> People actually like to work - to feel useful. There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. I think it's completely wrong, people (most of them) will continue to work; the huge difference is that they will not do it for the money, but for the actual effect it has. Your example shows it. You can also ask yourselves if chefs, musicians, programmers, mechanic…

Not to mention basic income is not a comfortable living. Folks will not work unless they can get paid enough to notice. Will that drive down entry-level salaries, or drive them up? Hm.
Post reply on HN