Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit Jobs

slatestarcodex.com

451–460 of 576 posts

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you believe that we operate in a market economy, then by definition bullshit jobs would be removed. That's the theory, but we all know that theoretical capitalism and what we have today are very different beasts. Bullshit jobs are not literally companies paying people to do nothing, but more systemic problems. My local shop wants to sell a banana to me. The intrinsic complexity of this task is: A small group of p…

You have this completely wrong. The advertisers are hired to increase demand for and sell more bananas. If banana demand is actually fixed and the advertisers don't work out (are bullshit jobs), the banana company is not going to keep using the advertisers and cut out the bullshit jobs.

No no no, the point is that the jobs aren't useless _locally_, in that my most local store cannot fire their advertising department, but they are still useless _globally_, in that the sheer scale of resources poured into creating the advertisements to compete with other stores is zero-sum.

$1 of banana advertising does not generate >$1 of banana purchasing _overall_, though it may _take_ >$1 of banana purchasing from a different store. No meaningful value was created for society.

There's a degree to which advertising is educating consumers as to where they can get bananas. The cost required to fulfil that is significantly lower than the actual cost of the advertising industry, because the advertising industry effectively generates other jobs in the advertising industry to compete with itself, as our competing banana establishments both pour more and more of their money into advertisement, because if they don't they lose sales to their competitors. Because more advertising is needed, more advertisers are needed - but the market isn't expanding, or rather, it isn't expanding even a fraction as quickly as the advertising industry.

So we end up in this absurd position where we spend _so many resources_ advertising bananas, when we could spend a tiny fraction and get the same result - no, a _better_ result. Estimates suggest that 40%+ of all bananas are simply wasted, because they don't fit the aesthetically pleasing, advertisable profile of an "expected" banana. Because competition is so tight, and so many resources are put not into the intrinstic complexity of selling bananas, but into the "bullshit" systems surrounding it, we have a waste _floor_ of 40%, even before considering the direct cost of the advertising industry supporting bananas.

And that's bananas. That's one fruit. The whole market is like this, to varying degrees, where entire industries only exist to support other industries, which only exist to deal with the problems they cause. It's bullshit - not in the sense that any one company can just fire all the worthless people, because obviously it's more complicated than that, but in the sense that we have vast chunks of human productivity going into tasks which do not benefit _anybody_. We are burning our finite resources out advertising bananas while at the same time facing down the impending crisis of climate change and asking ourselves where we could possibly make the efficiency improvements necessary to save our species.

I don't know either - but let's start with the bananas.

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is tragic. Entire human lives are being wasted on this dystopia of boredom and meaninglessness. Such an interesting moment that we find ourselves in: Humans have taken over the planet and are upset that daily lives now revolve around trite and petty bs rather than predators, scarcity and violence.

No we're upset that we can't cut out the trite and petty bs and be free to make ourselves happy while not worrying about predators, scarcity and violence. I find these arguments in defense of the existing system to to be the actually trite thing because it reveals an inability to truly look at the system at large and ask what outcomes we want and instead mounts a defense of it as is.

Hey I'm all for social change when it comes to repressed/marginalized people and even wealth redistribution, but I just don't think we can escape BS as discussed in TFA.

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#453
post #18

University administrators.[1] Stanford is busily building their new Redwood City "campus". It's all administrators . No students. No faculty. No research. 13 office buildings. 2700 staff. Initially, the campus will be home to Stanford employees working in such critical areas as the School of Medicine administration; Stanford Libraries and University Archives; the major administrative units of Business Affairs; Land,…

I wonder if this is also a result of simple career progression.

How do people go up the ladder if there's already people at the top? With people living longer, more women working, etc the organization has to create more positions at the top or lose talent?

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#454
post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally zero percent of the economy works like this in reality.

Some people do not start out with different starting conditions? Some people are not more productive than others? In what way are varying starting conditions and varying productivity levels (cost structures) not realistic? If I were to guess, GPs point is that post-hoc redistribution is not fair (or can not be made to be fair?). Do you disagree with this conclusion?

It's close. My point is that we need a clear definition of what's fair to start from. And it has to be a definition that is satisfactory to most people.

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#455

I am fairly convinced that bullshit jobs (and entire bullshit industries) exist as a consequence of the following things: 1) There is less and less actual work to be done due to technological progress; 2) There are economic incentives to create larger and larger organizations; 3) Society hasn't found a rational way to redistribute wealth yet. This is tragic. Entire human lives are being wasted on this dystopia of bor…

> Society hasn't found a rational way to redistribute wealth yet. There is no purely rational way to redistribute wealth (or, really, no rational way to actually do anything ). Rationality is a tool that allows you to choose the path of action that best fits your goals/values. It does not prescribe any values. What we (as a society) do right now to redistribute wealth may very well be "the rational way" relative to s…

the way we redistribute wealth right now is through busy work. this is incredibly irrational. once we recognize that, we can start thinking about alternatives in earnest.

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#456
post #313
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's break it down to something simple: I have $3, you have $1. Is it fair that I give you $1 so we both have $2? Is that rational? Now let's say that you work 3 hours a day and I work 1 hour. Now what's fair? You're working three times longer than me, but I had three times as much money to start with. Would fair actually be if I gave you $2 instead? That way our cash is on par with our hourly work. Does that seem r…

> Now. What if I sell widget polish. And you make widgets. You buy polish from me. So now, if we split the money, I sell you a bottle of polish for $1. Now the money is unequal again, so we equal the money. Effectively, I'm just giving you free polish. That's rational? Fair? By the same rationale you can just pick up a free widget, so it seems both rational and fair.

Only if I need/want widgets. Which isn't included in the hypothetical. Because the point is to highlight what happens when I sell you something and makes the distribution unequal again.

If I come out the same whether or not I sell polish, why should I sell polish? Rationally, I shouldn't.

That's also a good reason we should be very careful about using words like rational and fair. There's a lot of perspective hiding in both. And at the very least, fair does not have an easy definition for all situations.

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that these jobs are bullshit jobs, it's that commonly they are wrapped up in bullshit procedures . These procedures typically appear when there's an initiative to reduce costs. The easiest and cheapest way to employ an unskilled person to do a skilled job is to hand them a book of 'procedures' on their first day and say "Everything you need to do and know is in this Book". No time consuming cross-training re…

I think you're right, but I have a somewhat less dire view on this. I think that large companies optimize for a fundamentally different outcome than smaller companies, like startups. Large companies became large by applying a successful business model, something that startups are still lacking. If you have a working business model and stable cashflow, any change is potentially dangerous and can take down the company.…

Relevant:

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/11/09/ceos-dont-steer/

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#458
post #454
post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people do not start out with different starting conditions? Some people are not more productive than others? In what way are varying starting conditions and varying productivity levels (cost structures) not realistic? If I were to guess, GPs point is that post-hoc redistribution is not fair (or can not be made to be fair?). Do you disagree with this conclusion?

It's close. My point is that we need a clear definition of what's fair to start from. And it has to be a definition that is satisfactory to most people.

Interesting. If you have 51% of the people declaring that 49% percent of the people should start with nothing, and that they (by right of popular demand) should get the 49%'s stuff, as a starting point, then, ... that's a clear definition, I guess. And it's satisfactory to most people, I guess. I still feel vaguely unnerved.

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not criticizing competition itself. It's wasteful, but it's also necessary because this is how we solve resource allocation problems - we're too dumb to do it directly, so we use market dynamics to implicitly compute it for us. I'm criticizing runaway negative-sum games. Like where companies are competing for a fixed-size market - any marginal effort to win more of the market will be cancelled out by equivalent e…

> competition itself. It's wasteful, but it's also necessary > we're too dumb to do it directly citation needed. Humanity is planning the colonization of Mars, nuclear fusion and so on and yet, somehow, managing our own resources is always an unsolvable problem? > I'm criticizing runaway negative-sum games. They are inevitable with competition.

Yes, we're too dumb to do resource allocation directly, and maybe irreparably so. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Re: Bullshit Jobs

#460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not just about bullshit jobs but about bullshit consumption, and the curious moral frameworks that support it. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Many jobs seem to have a net negative value for society - soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc. We'd probably be better of as a society paying these people to do nothing than to do what they do now; we'd be eve…

Credit cards definitely provide value, the anti-every-using-credit crowd seems to not understand how they work. If my pet ever needs thousands of dollars of emergency vet care, I can now pay for that using my credit, and then spread my payment of that bill over a longer period.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN