Live data from Hacker News

On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

libcom.org

281–290 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#281
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.

It seems that the answer should be, at least in the shot term, for good managers to recognize the 40 hours "available" concept and provide more flexible schedules. No one gains from having an office full of workers surfing Facebook on friday afternoon. Let people be someplace else if it their queue is empty. From the outside, it seems like startups do this better than most.

> From the outside, it seems like startups do this better than most.

As someone on the outside, hearing horror stories about mandatory 14 hour days and regularly working nights and weekends for startups I'd think they were doing it much worse. It's one of the things that has steered me away from working for a recent startup because I refuse to work more than 8 hours a week.

I had an interview at a startup where I asked the interviewer to take me through my average day at the company. He basically said I'd arrive at 8:30 and leave at 6:30 or 7, sometimes later. I told him that to maintain a healthy work/life balance I would be leaving at 5pm every day and asked him his opinion on that. He said it would be technically acceptable since they can't force you to work more than 8 hours, but would be heavily looked down upon. I didn't take the job.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#282

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…

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…

Who is a hypocrite here? I thought you would be happy to hear I'm exploiting these evil big banks, too big too fail.

I like Ayn Rand but don't agree on everything she said. But for the sake of argument let's say I agree with her 100%. So, then:

I use the company's money and time to work on my own Projects. I selfishly exploit stupid and weak that should die in the natural capitalistic process, but democratically elected Government didn't let it happen. I'm a parasite on the sick system because I want it to die. I don't see anything against Ayn Rand philosophy here. But then again, I'm not her cult follower or whatever.

And then being in this position I also see that the party can't go on forever and probably the day of reckoning will come. Most of these 300k employees wasting their time on BS jobs now, will eventually loose them. Maybe as soon as next year granted the FED raises interest rates substantially.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconditio…

> Administrative overhead eliminated neatly

Most administrative overhead eliminated neatly. Fraud prevention remains. (Keeping dead people off the rolls, and duplicate entries, and so on.)

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#285
post #63

Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h / 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get to 30 or less, we are at a threshold of the 4 day work week that's why its taking longer to cut down on the work hours. The 4 day work week will imply social changes, and therefore the resistance but it will come in the next 20 years. The author understands th…

>Workers in the beginning of the 20th century worked 70 hour 6-7 days weeks, now in many countries we are down to 35h / 5 days. In the next 10 years we will get to 30 or less, we are at a threshold of the 4 day work week that's why its taking longer to cut down on the work hours. Go back to the 1970s and a lot of people were saying exactly this ^^^ word for word. Instead we started working longer hours. The 'dream' n…

Right. For the dream to happen, we have to actively push for it, instead of just assuming it will happen on its own. There are plenty of powerful forces with incentives to maintain the status quo.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In addition to your misuse of "corporatism" as identified by tatterdemalion, you seem to be redefining "capitalism" to mean "what deelowe likes"; capitalism historically -- from the time that name was first given to an economic system by nineteenth century critics of the then-existing system in developed countries -- has always referred to a system which features unfettered accumulation of capital, and it is a system…

You seem to be repeating this idea over and over - that this is what a few people 200 years ago meant when they said "capitalism", and therefore that's what capitalism is. But that is not exactly what most people today mean by the term. Even if you were right 200 years ago, you're wrong today.

Your approach therefore winds up changing the use of the term, to make it more useful for your side of the debate. That's not an especially valid debating tactic...

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#287
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I would say my job is to make money. With the additional condition of enjoying the liberty to spend the money, which is why I avoid lucrative but illegal activities, at least to the extent I can consciously avoid doing illegal things.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#288
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…

Some corporate lawyers also persuade upper management they're going to be in serious trouble if they don't drop the unfair terms from their employment contracts, prevent their companies from being taken advantage of by predatory rivals, kill off patent trolls and prevent utterly frivolous lawsuits from ever seeing the light of day.

Poet-musicians seldom play for such high stakes, though ones that can't sell enough albums to pay the recording costs or get enough live gigs to feed themselves haven't necessarily left their audiences feeling happier on aggregate.

It's really easy to believe that certain corporate lawyer jobs have no social value, or negative social value. It's also really easy to believe that somebody who enjoyed being a "poet-musician" is rather bitter about the fact they now spend sixty suited hours a week wearing a suit composing boilerplate prose, and their whining about what a massive waste of time their job is isn't a particularly good illustration of misallocated resources. It's natural to believe that stuff you enjoy doing is more socially valuable than stuff you don't, but personal feelings of validation are an even worse proxy for social value than the market system.

In particular I'm unconvinced by the link drawn between "talented poet-musicians" failing to get their recording contracts renewed and maldistribution of incomes, as if the 99% were unable to afford to patronise poet-musicians rather than seeing no value in doing so. And funnily enough, if the poet musician suffered from being undiscovered rather than untalented, they could probably benefit from the endeavours of people involved in the drudgery of service sector "bullshit" jobs like A&R man, ad exec, or analyst for music retail platform.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#289

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…

Yup. Because large bureaucracies do stupid things, whether they report to the government or to their shareholders.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#290
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference there is that when a company is wasteful, they do it with their own money. When the state is wasteful, that's my money they are pissing away.

This difference is not that clear. Governments are bailing out failing banks and handing out beefy contracts; pension funds are owning sizeable proportions of the huge, slow, stupid companies, etc. All with my money.

I think your comment supports my point entirely. Your issue is with the gov't and pension funds, not with the slow, stupid companies.
Post reply on HN