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

381–390 of 390 posts

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#381

Post by yodsanklai »

existencebox wrote: post #378
yodsanklai wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Western culture really doesn't allow us to just show up for the 15-20 hours we really work and get paid the same salary as the 40 we say we do. There are exceptions. As an academic, I have that freedom. If I don't feel like working, I have no pressure to stay at my office. On the other hand, I often work during the evenings, weekends and vacation. I wonder how I would adjust if I had to switch to a regular job.

As someone who recently shifted from an academic, paper writing position to a bigCo job, "Don't." That's really all I can say. No matter how good you think it is, it will break your spirit, and if doing meaningful work at a reasonable pace is what's important for you, you (probably, there are always exceptions) won't get it in the corporate world. EDIT: (I realize this is a very delayed response, but I've been mullin…

Thanks for your input. Actually, I've been considering making this shift, at least temporarily. I'd like to do something different for a while. But it probably won't happen anyway.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#382

Post by existencebox »

yodsanklai wrote: post #381
existencebox wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who recently shifted from an academic, paper writing position to a bigCo job, "Don't." That's really all I can say. No matter how good you think it is, it will break your spirit, and if doing meaningful work at a reasonable pace is what's important for you, you (probably, there are always exceptions) won't get it in the corporate world. EDIT: (I realize this is a very delayed response, but I've been mullin…

Thanks for your input. Actually, I've been considering making this shift, at least temporarily. I'd like to do something different for a while. But it probably won't happen anyway.

This echoes a lot of the sentiment that I had when I moved, and frankly I regret it. I can't obviously know that all of our variables are the same, but for me, I lost the ability to work in a place that had a friendly work environment, with nearly full control over how and what I worked on, the ability to publish, AND work on a full stack, in exchange for a doubled paycheck and losing all of the above, this was simply not worth it and I spend most days here counting down until I've "paid my dues" and can go back into an area I feel more passionate about without burning any bridges.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#383

Post by crdoconnor »

parasubvert wrote: post #379
crdoconnor wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that Erin Brockovich was based upon a true story right?

Of course. The point is that it's an absurd Hollywood-fed cliche to think that this represents all corporate lawyers and thus that they have no social value as a profession.

So now real life is a cliche?

Okay then.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#384

Post by crdoconnor »

dragonwriter wrote: post #373
crdoconnor wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs". Why?

> So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs". No, I agree that it is an essential function of government (arguably, the only legitimate function of government) to correct for market failures by shifting incentives or directly purchasing goods and services so that exchanges whi…

>Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job

Economically inefficient jobs like building the triborough bridge.

Or providing healthcare.

Or building dams.

Or building schools.

Or building public art works.

Your entire argument is based upon a theoretical presumption that is disproved by reality: that if the government provides jobs that did not otherwise exist that those jobs will by necessity be make work.

Economic efficiency is also a terrible measure of whether something is worthwhile. Was sending a man to the moon economically efficient? Was it worthwhile?

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#385

Post by crdoconnor »

Matumio wrote: post #367
crdoconnor wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. It's also a problem solved by a job guarantee. There is no need…

I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic. Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing? If something really needs to be done, you can increase the pay until somebody does it.

>I think the main benefit of an unconditional basic income, however small, is exactly to help us getting over the worst of protestant work ethic.

Well, that presents you with a chicken/egg situation because for it to have any hope of becoming reality you will need to convince everybody (the majority of Americans) who believe that everybody should pull their weight.

>Do we really need to make existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the government thinks they should be doing?

Do we need to? No. Do I agree with you? Yes. But, most people think that it is a moral imperative that you should have to work for a living and we live in a kind of Democracy, so...

Until that part of our culture changes to accommodate we won't get basic income.

At the moment we're making existential threats to people who don't accept the work that the private sector (i.e. democratically unaccountable 1%) thinks that should be doing.

All I'm saying is that the government should provide decent jobs so that the 1% have to compete with the government and provide better jobs than they currently do.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#386

Post by crdoconnor »

thedufer wrote: post #324
zaccus wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There have been fairly long-term experiments on BI, and people who choose not to work do things they enjoy - learning to paint, going to school, etc. How are those things not work? They require focused effort, just the same as any job does. Does something not qualify as "work" just because it is enjoyable?

I was using some implicit assumptions made by crdoconnor (without which the `"need to work" -> PWA > BI` implication falls apart). The first, that "work" implies something you can reasonably be paid for. And the second, that there's some dependence on others in order to do the work. Alternatively, you can re-word my argument if you'd like - the human need to work doesn't imply that BI is insufficient because people c…

>Alternatively, you can re-word my argument if you'd like - the human need to work doesn't imply that BI is insufficient because people can find meaningful work on their own.

Yep, the question is whether as a society you'd rather have them building bridges and schools or forming bands and writing (mostly pretty bad) poetry.

I can see arguments for both but honestly I think the first is an easier sell for the vast majority of citizens.

If you feel like your inflation is high enough and you don't really want more people out there writing poetry, basic income doesn't seem like such a great deal.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#387

Post by dnautics »

confluence wrote: post #343
dnautics wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(shove the healthcare part aside for a second) to a certain degree, all firms are 'socialist', because they are banding together to not compete with each other. This is the central interesting problem in the 'theory of the firm' which deals with how in a capitalist system groups of individuals band together to not compete . This definition, then is meaningless. Socialism is when a central authority organizes the dist…

It's only malfunction is being poorly funded. The definition is not meaningless. Companies are pretty socialist.

no it's not. The organization is corrupt from the top. My father is a medium-level executive there. Years ago, he reported that there was black mold in the senior care facility and exposed several million dollars of overbilling by doctors. For his troubles, he was rubber-roomed (paid six salaries to sit in a room with no windows and no responsibilities). This is not an incident that made the major media. Other, more publicised problems exist, in the Phoenix office, and notably at Walter Reed, during the Bush tenure and wars in afghanistan and iraq. But if you seriously have such a belief in the VA, GO ASK 5 VETERANS what they think of it.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#388

Post by thedufer »

crdoconnor wrote: post #361
thedufer wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People actually like to work - to feel useful Your argument seems to hinge on this, but I see no reason to believe it. There have been fairly long-term experiments on BI, and people who choose not to work do things they enjoy - learning to paint, going to school, etc. There weren't any problems with people "needing to work" but not being able to. > It it proven and was highly successful during the previous depressi…

>Your argument seems to hinge on this, but I see no reason to believe it. Why else did the people under Plan Jefes CONTINUE doing their jobs - kind of for free, really - after the jobguarantee was replaced with an income guarantee? >Much of the unskilled labor done by the CCC has since been automated into fewer skilled jobs. "It worked in a completely different world" doesn't convince me that it'll work in this one.…

> Check the statistics.

I'd love to. Link?

> Why else did the people under Plan Jefes CONTINUE doing their jobs - kind of for free, really - after the jobguarantee was replaced with an income guarantee?

Again, link? I can't find any reference about that program dropping the work requirement.

> I don't expect a job guarantee to provide only unskilled jobs, either.

I didn't claim that. Finding useful work for skilled laborers is far easier than for unskilled, and unfortunately most of the unemployed are the latter, which is why that is the more difficult problem to solve.

Edit:

From your other comment:

> Yep, the question is whether as a society you'd rather have them building bridges and schools or forming bands and writing (mostly pretty bad) poetry.

Again, bridges and schools are built by skilled laborers. Employing them is not that difficult part of this plan.

Also, its not a direct trade-off. Employing someone for a set salary is far more expensive than just giving them that money. BI becomes an easier sell when you recognize that PWA is both less effective (what about the people who can't work?) and far more expensive.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#389

Post by collyw »

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…

Probably some of this is down to certain jobs requiring a lot more time than others. Some jobs may only require 15-20 hours week, but others like mine (building and maintaining a database for an organization), will never run out of work. If someone else were getting paid the same as me for half the amount of work, I would be asking for more pay. If they sit there bored for 20 hours, then I at least don't feel as short changed.

Re: On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs

#390

Post by deelowe »

tatterdemalion wrote: post #185
deelowe wrote: post #171

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.

That's not actually what corporatism means. The word you're looking for is corporatocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Thank you for the correction.
Post reply on HN