Live data from Hacker News

On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

libcom.org

221–230 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#221
post #162

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.

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.

It's a lot easier to stay focused on physical jobs, if only because they keep your blood flowing.

In contrast, office employees chug a lot of stimulants every day (coffee) and still manage to spend the afternoon fighting off drowsiness.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#222
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, racism and religious fundamentalism.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so without employement you just die homeless and hungry in the streets That pretty much doesn't happen in any western country now, due to welfare. If the desire is to prevent starvation and homelessness, transfer payments do a fine job; there's no need for intervention in the labour market or monetary system.

Quite a lot of people have died or committed suicide in the UK recently, because the government decided to change the rules around disability and chronic illness. It hired a shill organisation to declare that the disabled, chronically ill, and dying were fit for work. So bedridden terminal cancer patients have had all benefits cut and told to look for work. This is not an exaggeration, by the way. Graeber has missed…

"What we have is a status economy"

Which actually sounds rather like the original definition of "meritocracy":

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#224
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.

It's most definitely possible to put in 40 hours of work. This mainly happens in more labor-intensive jobs. Note that it doesn't have to be construction work. Even your primary care physician's job might be described as "labor-intensive," just because they have so many patients to meet with and so much administrative work to do for each one. I'm sure many (most?) doctors do put in a legitimate 40 hours of work a week.

As another example, when I was a college student there were definitely a lot of weeks when I put in a legitimate 40 hours of work. But it was distributed over many activities, from actually sitting in lecture, to attending office hours, taking tests, studying/reading, working on homework, and participating in extracurriculars. There was a ton of downtime mixed in, and there certainly were virtually no solid eight hour blocks of nothing but work.

I honestly think a major impediment to office workers like programmers getting in a full 40 hours of productive work is just the environment itself. Just remaining stationary in an office for 8-9 hours a day is intrinsically exhausting, not physically but mentally. The worst part is when you have downtime, but still must remain stationary at your desk in the office. It now feels like you're working, but you're not. Your energy is draining, but you're not actually doing anything productive with that spent energy.

(To be fair, I also frequently would do homework up to or beyond midnight, or even on the weekends, whereas today I very rarely do work for my employer after I go home, unless an emergency comes up or I just honestly am so interested in a project that I want to. The upside to the 9-5 workday is that it has a well-defined beginning and end. In college, there was never a feeling of being done, except maybe after your final final for that semester.)

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, I disagree. I think that if you are in one of those jobs and continue to justify your existence and the existence of the job, you are just reinforcing it. For example, I know I am in one of those jobs so I tendered my resignation a few months ago and will be gone in December. Hopefully no one else fills it.

Easy to do if you don't have kids who need food, insurance that might lapse, rent that might go unpaid, etc etc.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#226
post #57

Graeber makes no distinction between "useful" as in: a) creator of exchange value to it's maker; b) creator of utility to it's holder; b) psychologically "meaningful" to the worker. And while the core of the article deals with the latter, by not making this distinction he dangerously suggests the two former. As much I'd like to believe that managers are stupid, they're not crazy to hand out free money. If an employee…

>It's hard to believe, for instance, that a "corporate lawyer's" work has no social value. It REALLY isn't that hard. >The job of lawyers isn't even to win legal battles, but to avoid them in the first place. Right, they run the full gamut from avoiding legal battles with communities that are trying to shut down polluting factories that damage their health to avoiding legal battles with people who have suffered injur…

Do you really consider the work corporate lawyers do can be summed up by the plotlines to Hollywood movies like "A Civil Action" and "Erin Brockovich"?

Because that's effectively what you've done in your reply.

Fundamentally, lawyers exist because we no longer (generally) find it acceptable to challenge each other to duels, or send Vinnie and the boys to bust someone's kneecaps when we don't like what they're doing. Irreconcilable disagreements between companies/businesses/individuals all need a means of resolution.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's endlessly bizarre to see Americans throw around the word "socialist" as if it was a curse. Western Europe is made of social democracies. Northern Europe in particular has made the choice to live with high taxes and better social services. It does not mean that they are governed by unelected oligarchs, they get the same kind of elected oligarchs as the rest.

There has been a concerted campaign in the US to convince people that other countries' social services are inefficient, dangerous, and hated by their populations. In a fun example, an American financial newspaper claimed ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_... ) that if Stephen Hawking were British and subject to the NHS that he'd be dead. He is, of course, British.

Either there are vested interests at work, or Hawking is in fact a zombie.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#228
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>There is this common misconception that basic income will make everyone stay home and do nothing useful. Rather than answering supposedly common misconceptions that nobody on this thread actually had - answer me this instead: What is so wrong with giving the unemployed a JOB rather than just money? They need money, but they also want to work. During the last depression the PWA built tons of useful stuff, much of whi…

I challenge you to ask around you this question:

"If basic income were to be established, what would you think people do ?"

As owenmarshall said, you can perfectly have both -- establish basic income for "survival" needs, and let people have work if they really want to. Basic income doesn't mean abolishing all kinds of work, it just means making sure humans don't have to work to live.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#229
post #119
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 was able to spend the last 5 years or so working almost 100% from home (that's changed as I've switched jobs recently). I would say I easily did the same amount of work from home as I had in the previous jobs, but I probably really only spent 12-20 hours doing it in any given week. I think the key though is "available for 40 hours" as you say. Even if I was only spending a fraction of the time "working", the work d…

Regarding your first paragraph, I'm right there now and proud of it.

And that's exactly how it should be.

I will say that this time is only available from ruthless automation and organisation.

I spend the other 20 hours making sure I only have to do 20 hour weeks forever (startup).

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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…

Wow. Are you saying that you adhere to the Libertarian/Ayn Rand philosophy of personal responsibility, equitable rewards for creating value to society, and all that jazz? You know, the type of philosophy that purportedly values personal integrity and creativity above all else?

... And yet you happily pull down a six-figure paycheck for a job you believe is worthless?

Because, if so, you should know that the sense of moral superiority that you seem to share with most modern Randroids is outstandingly hypocritical.

Post reply on HN