On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#251

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:12 PM UTC

indrax wrote: post #247

crdoconnor wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>What is so wrong with giving the unemployed a JOB rather than just money? Who decides what jobs are available? Who decide who gets which jobs? By giving a job instead of money, you are using up a significant chunk of the labor pool. You need an additional chunk to figure out how to allocate it, and are then relying on them to allocate it well. To build something, you are also paying for and using up capital. By givi…

Giving money is currently costing more for the administration than the money given out. So not any better?

Giving a job is incentive to get your own job - if you give awful jobs like shoveling sludge or picking up highways.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#252

Post by bstrong » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

tpeo wrote: 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…

> If an employee generated no additional income to it's employer, there would be no reason to hire him in the first place.

The thing to remember here is that hiring managers aren't spending their own money. And most managers I know (though notably not the best ones) have always wanted to manage bigger teams, both for simple ego reasons and because it tends to lead to promotions and higher compensation (in one company where I worked briefly, title and compensation were directly linked to number of employees managed).

This motivation leads to all sorts of decisions that are suboptimal from an economic perspective, including lots of "bullshit acquisitions".

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#253

Post by wutbrodo » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

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 used to very strongly feel this way, but recently I'm definitely been choosing to put in that much time (and I mean actual productive time), despite being at a company/team that puts a strong emphasis on work-life balance (there are a lot of parents on my team and they're out the door at ~4:45 to pick up kids, etc). I think it might have something to do with the fact that I happen to be particularly motivated and excited about what I'm working on right now (more so than basically ever before in my short working life). As you said, it may not be sustainable, but I've been doing it for about 8 months now.

It makes me wonder if the real issue is being able to do 40 hours of (relatively) unstimulating work, vs just 40 hours of work. I know for sure that I can't handle a tedious, brain-dead task for even half an hour without needing a break, and when I've had roles that were somewhat challenging but less interesting in, I killed a decent chunk of my 40 hours reading articles, etc.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#254

Post by lucasmoellers » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:18 PM UTC

furyg3 wrote: post #99

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.

For sure, that's certainly one of the things that he misses. The midnight pizza deliveryman has a 'bullshit' job where he does nearly nothing because the 1 hour of real work over an 8 hour period is worth it to his boss. Most professional/service work has a large component of this type of availability. But yet we still try to maximize for 40. If we automate the pointless bits, we don't scale back Bob's hours to 20 an…

The two delivery driver jobs that I had both paid per delivery. I was not paid to wait around. I would expect that if a delivery driver was paid per hour, that they would be given other tasks if deliveries were slow.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#255

Post by sunnybg » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #133

sunnybg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leisure doesn't have to be indulgent. It simply gives a lot more possibilities. If you could work on any project or interest or hobby you wanted to right now, what would you work on? If you could learn any new thing you wanted, what would you learn about? Any family, friends, neighbors, or others going through a hard time right now, how would you like to help them? This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching kids…

I think we might be talking about different things. My understanding of this articles is: (A) A lot of work is bullshit from either a 'gives your life meaning' or a 'is useful to the world' perspective. (B) Everyone working full time is such a foundational part of our society that we don't know how to change it without breaking the world. Work is our identity, our drive to get good grades in preschool, the way money…

In the US, what about a state-level constitutional amendment lowering full-time hours from 40 to 35? It just seems to me that public support isn't even there right now for something like that, but that support is necessary for getting there.

A basic income, even a very low one, would be another way to get there. We could do away with the idea of full-time / salaried work entirely, and everyone is just part-time hourly. People could work enough hours just for subsistence, or more up to whatever comfort or consumption level fits their desired lifestyle.

If a person believes their paying job is at the core of who they are, they are either very lucky (working a dream job), or very unlucky (overworked, unfulfilled, and/or indoctrinated). All people, not just the wealthy or beautiful or lucky, deserve as much freedom and autonomy as their society can provide to them. Every person deserves a chance to become a great thinker, visionary, artist, scientist, craftsperson, and you can't do those things without plenty of free time to explore and experiment.

Wanting a better world and believing it's possible is the first step to getting there.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#256

Post by DanBC » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

notdang wrote: post #250

Don't want to defend Soviet Union, but this is very different to what I experienced while living in USSR: "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). " It was quite the opposite. Just one person…

Three huge queues?

You queue to say what you want and get a ticket. You take that ticket to a different queue and pay for the item and get a different ticket. You take that ticket to a third quue to collect the item.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#257

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:22 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #251

indrax wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is so wrong with giving the unemployed a JOB rather than just money? Who decides what jobs are available? Who decide who gets which jobs? By giving a job instead of money, you are using up a significant chunk of the labor pool. You need an additional chunk to figure out how to allocate it, and are then relying on them to allocate it well. To build something, you are also paying for and using up capital. By givi…

Giving money is currently costing more for the administration than the money given out. So not any better? Giving a job is incentive to get your own job - if you give awful jobs like shoveling sludge or picking up highways.

> Giving money is currently costing more for the administration than the money given out.

The administrative cost in giving money in status quo benefit programs is tied up in means-testing, use-enforcement, behavior-testing, etc. -- making sure that all the variable inputs that control who gets which benefits, how much of those benefits they get, and how those benefits can be used. That's the whole problem unconditional basic income solves. You have very simple qualified class (all citizens or all legal residents, whatever is chosen as the target population), everyone in the class gets the same benefit, and there are no use restrictions associated with the benefit. Administrative overhead eliminated neatly -- and at the same time, the perverse incentives that go with the same restrictions that the administrative costs go to enforcing are also eliminated.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#258

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:23 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #151

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…

> The only answer is to decouple them, and introduce something like basic income ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income ) Or finding work for these people that is a lot more useful for the society.

With a basic income, they can find work for other people (and other people can find work for them).

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#259

Post by georgemcbay » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #237

humanrebar wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but can you do that until you're 80? And what happens when you have a serious knee problem or a pregnancy? I suspect it's exceptional that someone can do physical labor for 40 hours a week for 45 weeks a year for 60 years. The common response is, "Well, yeah, but you should retire at some point." And that's a fair response, but farm workers are severely under-charging if they expect to work for 30 years…

The ability to survive for 25 years of retirement is a relatively new phenomenon. The economy likely hasn't had a chance to catch up.

We only really live about 6 and a half years longer than we would prior to the industrial revolution on average. This relatively modest number is obscured somewhat by overall life expectancy averages which are buoyed by drastically reduced infant mortality.

In any case, the political/economic response has been to move up the age of retirement, which isn't helpful to the long term knee health of the hypothetical farmer worker here.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#260

Post by phazmatis » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:27 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #171

dognotdog wrote: post #117

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!

s/capitalism/corporatism Many capitalists (myself included) tend to not support corporatism. Capitalism assumes individuals owning smallish businesses. The minute a business becomes large enough to influence the federal government, things get weird and I'm not sure the system works as intended.

s/capitalism/oligarchy