Not to say executives don't put people into bullshit jobs for exactly the reasons Graeber gets at. It's just that their (employees) judgement is biased and so there will be false positives. Haven't most people been on a project where people thought some task assigned was a waste of time, that maybe looking back was actually valuable?
An anecdote from one of my friends, who works in the finance department of a university: her entire job is to copy rows from one piece of software (PeopleSoft) into another piece of software. She's told which rows to copy by another person in the department (via email), who in turn is copying them from a third piece of software. All of this could be automated without any "big picture" changes, and everybody who works these jobs is aware of that fact; hence "bullshit."
I think that too often folks conflate the fact that a job is boring/tedious/simple/whatever other negative characteristics with the idea that it's "bullshit," when really it does serve a useful purpose and is worth more to the company than they're paying in salary to the person doing it.
No shared notion of "bullshit" needs to exist between the two of us (or you and Graeber, me and Graeber, etc.). Assuming that we need to agree on what actually constitutes a "bullshit job" is making the same error that the GP points out.
Someone comes to you and says, "my job is pointless and should not exist."
The conclusion is drawn, "Actually their job is vital and their self-report is deluded."
The conclusion is drawn because presumably someone thinks they output enough value to continue paying them for their work. That person might be wrong, and maybe some PE firm or consultants will come through and cull the chaff to capture the lost expenses but the person themselves doing the work probably doesn't have the full perspective.
I take it as the software version of virtue signaling.
Further, how can we trust our perception is the better measure of the value of that job? If the person performing the role can't even assess the value properly, how are they providing that value?
go remove some guys that do legal compliance stuff and when the random inspection happen years later, you'll find out that maybe it would've cost you less to keep that employee.
Planes can keep flying without a pilot for quite awhile, until they run out of fuel or crash into a mountain.
Bad news: you have been rejected from consideration for any work related to realtime/life critical systems.
Good news: you may have a future in politics, at least in the county I live in.
"What will happen if this person stopped doing their job?"
"Oh the important monthly reports will stop going out."
"Oh, okay, we better not have them stop doing that then."
I submit that not only can we, but we must, admit that in some individual cases the person in the position knows best, and in others, they don't.
Or maybe, absent other evidence, it might make more sense to tentatively take people's self reports at face value. Or at least hold off backing some particular elaborate alternative which involves people being wrong about the things they have most information on.
Even in the example given by Graeber at the start could have variables that make the job of having an IT guy drive 6 hours to move a computer down the hallway make sense. Maybe soldiers moving computers has resulted in many computers becoming broken costing more in money and downtime than having a trained professional drive in and move the computer. Maybe having on-site IT staff is more expensive than having the off-site IT guy make a few visits a year.
Compare The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down[1]: tacking "self-proclaimed" on the front doesn't improve any understanding of the contents, and would only make the author come across as smarmy.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Catches_You_and_You...
> Everyone is familiar with those sort of jobs that don’t seem, to the outsider, to really do much of anything...
> This possibility that our society is riddled with useless jobs that no one wants to talk about did not seem inherently implausible.
> Clearly, then, we have an important social phenomenon that has received almost no systematic attention.
There's also a Chapter titled: "Why Do We as a Society Not Object to the Growth of Pointless Employment?"
It seems Graeber is making a much wider commentary, including society's perspective, which goes beyond the personal opinions of the people holding these jobs.
The qualification is that even the person doing the job thinks it's bullshit. That doesn't mean the definition relies solely on them thinking it's bullshit.
Frankly, reading through the article, it feels like the definition keeps shifting and much of it is his struggle to even define what it means. He then goes on to start giving his definitions of the what he thinks are types of bullshit jobs.
The article I don't think is all that consistent and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Exactly. Like many of us, Graeber writes to understand.
His stated purpose is abundantly clear. Many, many people were sharing with Graeber complaints of a similar theme. So he tried to name and describe it.
Rightly, wrongly, or otherwise, it's all in the book. For other people to pick apart and response to.
How else is scholarship supposed to function?
Would Graeber have been more effective as an op ed columnist, churning out saccharine blather which confirms everyone's priors? eg The World is Flat and Bobos in Paradise?
I think there are definitely jobs that a computer or robot should be doing, but a human is there instead because of what our economy and society currently values. However, until the computer or robot is actually doing the job, I don't think I'd call it a bullshit job. That's not to say society shouldn't consider the impacts of grinding people's lives away with rote repetitive tasks.
Certain critics have adopted a labored, willful misunderstanding. eg Brad DeLong.
Graeber became public enemy #1 with Debt: The first 5000 Years. Some economists just couldn't wrap their heads around the anthropological viewpoint. Graeber is talking about people and societies evolving relationship(s) to debt, not economies and finance.
Economists and anthropologists like to dunk on each other. It's now something like a blood feud.
A more informative title would really be "boring jobs whose purpose isn't understood by the people doing them"
How is this job that different from being on an assembly line and all you do is tighten the screws on something that passes by?
To me it seems clear that that is not what this book is about. It's about the purpose, not the contents.
Of course the data was available on disk, but the boss didn't want to take the risk of nobody in our giant building full of computer programmers being able to crack the government's database format.
I WAS REPLACED
BY A CRON JOBAnd still handling exceptions manually.
Personally it's pretty obvious the problem arises precisely because no one has the visibility that there's people doing bullshit jobs, meaning the process can be automated. When you say "automated with big picture": who do you think has 1) the incentives to fix the issue; 2) the power to order that and 3) the cultural capital to push for a change in the old ways? Who do you think will "run the automation"?
https://www.bloomberglinea.com/english/i-fired-12-floors-of-...
If the conclusion of the research is "these jobs are bullshit", then I agree, but if it is about how people are doing in these jobs, it is completely valid. Graeber was mixing these in his book to have more popular appeal, which is bad.
> Line employees often do not have a big picture understanding of the work they are doing.
That's what Marx called alienation of labor. While it may increase efficiency, it takes all the pleasure out of work. But that's not really the topic of the book: There's entropy in any larger organization, and I'm sure we all have an example or two of people who are a pure waste of energy in their position.
I am almost positive Adam Smith pointed to this problem before with the pin factory example
Give people a meaning and they will do much better work. It’s not rocket science.
This sounds good, but it's honestly just not realistic in a lot of jobs. How are you going to make working at an Amazon warehouse meaningful? Stocking shelves at Walmart? Making fries at McDonalds?
You can give the usual platitudes of how you're helping to make sure that people in your community can get the goods/food/whatever they need, but I think most people know that they're not really contributing to the betterment of society in a lot of jobs.
And to be clear, that's not just menial labor - I've been a PM on some products that could disappear off the face of the earth without making anybody especially worse off (except the guy managing the part of the operation that used our software, but ultimately he'd go to a competitor and all would be fine).
I think that it's often better to forget the idea that work needs to be deeply meaningful and treat people with the respect of recognizing that they're there for a paycheck and nothing else, and then try to do what you can to make the day-to-day work easier and more pleasant.
Meanwhile I'll be hoping against hope that when these meaningless jobs get replaced by robots and AI that we get UBI and people can actually work to find meaning.
I think excluding compensation from those jobs, meaning higher compensation, from the idea of meaning is losing sight of it all. There at a lot of jobs that if people were compensated better they would find it to be more meaningful to engage with. It can be a primary motivation to simply do well because they feel fairly valued.
It’s not all heart and soul stuff
If you talk to these workers, you can tell those who have a careful manager from those who don’t.
Mere tediousness would consign all warehouse jobs and janitorial positions to "bullshit" - which they are not, as specifically called out in the book. They might be unpleasant, but are definitely necessary.
Parent commenter is stating that, with a good manager, they will remind you of the meaning inherent in the work. At McD's, perhaps: "Remember folks, we're getting hungry people fed, hard working folks deserve a fresh hot meal"
Those are not “bullshit jobs” by any definition. An Amazon warehouse worker knows that someone has to do that job. The same is true for your other examples.
Because of course, the executive are always driving things in the optimal way, but only them can see it…
In fact, in most orgs the higher in the management position you climb, the more acutely you see the organisational warts of the company, which more often than not, is governed not according to some clever plan from the executives, but instead is the results of political struggles between entities whose leader often hate each other.
There are lots of instances that the leadership decisions are BS, and hamper growth or drive the company to the ground.
Using BCG consultants for example.
-advice (and an old joke) from a former colleague
Graeber was an anthropologist. Anthropologists want to understand how people feel about their lives and why. They don't take feelings of meaninglessness to imply that, objectively, a job could be cut without consequence. Just that many jobs don't satisfy a human thirst to be doing something subjectively worthwhile.
Is it not problematic that so many people feel that their jobs are bullshit? Is that an issue with the individual or society at large?
i think it’s likely a problem with both. no matter how many repeatedly delude themselves otherwise, both society and the individual are inextricable.
Been a while since I read Graeber's book but I recall one self reported "bullshit job" being to lift rocks scattered across a field and put them in a pile. The people doing the task thought it was a time wasting activity as they were unaware that winter frost pushes up new rocks every year.
It's possible that a lot of these so called bullshit jobs are just jobs where the purpose hasn't been explained to the employee.
Common theme in most of the executive decisions that I've seen. Lets shutdown product X, it costs us Y to run. We could use ~X from a different company that costs Y-2.5% to run. Then only months to an year later- We shouldn't have shut down X, as ~X is not what we actually want and our initial budgeting didn't cover it but we need 2Y to pay for and rebuilding X could cost us up to 10Y-20Y.
People at the top generally don't have what is 'precisely' needed. And the kind of resources it could to go about achieving it.
No biggie.
And executives do not understand the details of what is actually happening on the production floor. They might be fed inaccurate information or outright fantasies by middle management. This is how Russian leadership believed they had winter uniforms, but in reality those uniforms did not exist. The same power dynamics, hiding of errors, exaduration of what convenient, happens in companies.
>For the same reason I've seen lots of instances of people complaining about leadership decisions, thinking the work could be done differently or more efficiently, questioning priorities, etc. They don't have the executive view that is looking across the organization.
So you could use the same logic to say that electorate has no business complaining about decisions taken by politicians, after all they have no big picture view and don’t have access to the report that politicians do.
Especially at large organizations, they're relying on summaries of summaries of summaries observed by line managers summarizing information. Tons of information is lost that way.
This is why high-level strategy fails. Theoretical ideas hit reality and fall apart pretty quickly. Few executives are grounded enough to actually know how things work.
https://www.economist.com/business/2021/06/05/why-the-bullsh...
"In his book, Mr Graeber relied heavily on surveys of British and Dutch workers that asked participants whether their job made a meaningful contribution to the world. This seems a high bar to clear; it is unsurprising that 37-40% of respondents thought their job didn’t qualify. By contrast, the academics used the European Working Conditions Surveys, which by 2015 had talked to 44,000 workers across 35 countries. They focused on those respondents who thought that the statement “I have the feeling of doing useful work” applied to them “rarely” or “never”.
and :
"Furthermore, those who work in clerical and administrative jobs are far less likely to view their jobs as useless than those who are employed in roles that Mr Graeber regarded as essential, such as refuse collection and cleaning. Indeed, the researchers found an inverse relationship between education and the feeling of usefulness. Less educated workers were likelier to feel that their jobs were useless. And student debt does not appear to be a factor. In Britain, where its level is the highest in Europe, non-graduates under 29 were twice as likely to feel useless as their indebted graduate peers."
In contrast to the high share of bullshit jobs reported by Mr Graeber, in 2015 only 4.8% of respondents in the eu felt their work was useless. And this proportion had fallen, not risen, in recent years, from 5.5% in 2010 and 7.8% in 2005."
Link to the paper discussed by the article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015...
I feel that “our industry” is also rife with bullshit jobs, I think we aren’t exempt, but I wonder how others feel about this.
I had a bullshit job once: a project of 30M euro was clearly failing hard. 60 people were working every day and we didn’t deliver anything suitable for production. I kept my corner neat, but the writing was on the wall.
It felt so surreal, trying to care and do work, but on the other hand knowing the project was doomed.
After a year or so I couldn’t stand it anymore, I felt physically ill and I quit.
My manager was fired a month after I left. The project got canceled 6-8 months later.
They didn't believe that bird colonel JAG who told them there was no way the law applied. By the time it all got sorted out, we had it done.
Apparently, a memo went around that this was required everywhere all the time and the distinction wasn't made between public-facing websites (where this is true) and this one.
I feel you about the bullshit project you were on. I've been on similar projects and its such a grind. Helps to have a healthy work-life balance.
But: Big corps need to learn and experiment. Sometimes it's ridiculously expensive. But it needs to be done.
I quit a project (stayed in the company) that is currently running something like 10M euro. I quit when it was 1M. Because I felt my small role was tedious and stupid and not a big learning opportunity. But the job needs to be done. So now less capable people are doing it. And we (they organisation) will kind of maybe succeed. But the fact is: the project is mission critical for the company. So no choice but to do the job. But i can assure you most people working that project hates it. Think their job is bullshit etc. But really. It's just a really really important threadmill.
What i am trying to say: sometimes it's not the job. Sometimes it's you.
But the thing is, that won't happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not in 10 years. There will still be HR and PR departments to deal with humans and the stupid ways things need to work.
That's like a teacher saying that fundamentally if the kids just opened their book, read the lesson and did their exercise they wouldn't be needed in the first place. But we all know why that's only one ideal scenario and in practice you still need a teacher.
Tbf this isn't that great of a metric and the book itself relies on it a lot. I've personally seen a few of doctors and surgeons describe their job as mostly bullshit because they're not satisfied with it.
I don't think many computer programmers think programming computers in itself is bullshit, but everything around that core task can feel like bullshit very easily, and a lot of programming jobs feel like nothing but bullshit.
Do you feel they're describing "healing people" as bullshit, or that they're describing existing in the framework we've built up around healing people as bullshit?
Not everyone likes being a doctor. This isn't a US exclusive thing.
Some people might complain about all the data they need to analyze and forms to fill out and say "my job is bullshit", but it's all needed for compliance with some industry regulations (that HN seems to love so much).
Is that a bullshit job? I'd say no, even if the person doing the work thinks so.
Moreover, I think most people have a better idea of how bullshit their job is than an outside observer. Theyre doing it.
The job can be still bullshit, even though it serves a purpose for a specific company in a specific environment.
Corporate lawyer is the archetypal graeberian bullshit job.
His definition of bullshit seems to have no resemblance to what people would think of bullshit jobs.
Any such profession is a category of bullshit job in the book, whether or not you personally think corporate lawyers produce value to the world.
That would apply to any profession which involves competing in a zero sum game.
Zero-sum games exist, therefore these professions exist to enable players to win them
I could never work in a zero-sum environment.
So the job isn't bullshit as long as those laws exist.
The whole idea of "bullshit jobs" seems to focus on the job, not the environment that produces them.
Who is it then?
So I'd say if there is company X will to spend $Y on a job, then by definition it's not a bullshit job.
In the capitalist mode of production, the generation of products (goods and services) is accomplished with an endless sequence of discrete, repetitive motions that offer the worker little psychological satisfaction for "a job well done." By means of commodification, the labor power of the worker is reduced to wages (an exchange value); the psychological estrangement (Entfremdung) of the worker results from the unmediated relation between his productive labor and the wages paid to him for the labor. The worker is alienated from the means of production via two forms: wage compulsion and the imposed production content. The worker is bound to unwanted labour as a means of survival, labour is not "voluntary but coerced" (forced labor). The worker is only able to reject wage compulsion at the expense of their life and that of their family. The distribution of private property in the hands of wealth owners, combined with government enforced taxes compel workers to labor. In a capitalist world, our means of survival is based on monetary exchange, therefore we have no other choice than to sell our labour power and consequently be bound to the demands of the capitalist.
The worker "[d]oes not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself;" "[l]abor is external to the worker,"[12]: 74 it is not a part of their essential being. During work, the worker is miserable, unhappy and drained of their energy, work "mortifies his body and ruins his mind." The production content, direction and form are imposed by the capitalist. The worker is being controlled and told what to do since they do not own the means of production they have no say in production, "labor is external to the worker, i.e. it does not belong to his essential being.[12]: 74 A person's mind should be free and conscious, instead it is controlled and directed by the capitalist, "the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own but someone else's, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another."[12]: 74 This means he cannot freely and spontaneously create according to his own directive as labor's form and direction belong to someone else.
------------------
There it is, "bullshit jobs". And it was written by Karl Marx over 150 years ago, regarding the 4 types of capitalist alienation.
Simple yet very effective way to put it.
The author uses a very broad definition of bullshit, then pivots to their own personal view. You'll see this tactic in a lot of manipulative/dishonest content.
“a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence.”
Are the Internet, phones, cars, planes, processed food, restaurants, sporting areas, payroll, loans necessary? Many would argue that some of these are downright pernicious. It comes down to the evaluation and perspective of the employee, and thus is very much a feeling of bullshit, rather than a fact of bullshit - contrary to what the author argues. This is mostly a misinterpreted job satisfaction survey.
This person has no actual domain expertise, but instead they set out to confirm their mostly naive belief.
How horrifying, did he specify which terrible industries they were stuck in, and whether they were still hiring??
Anyone, feel free to comment if you do literally nothing at work :)