4 ms·

My take on the problem (predates Graeber's book though): http://250bpm.com/blog:44 http://250bpm.com/blog:44 TL;DR: Firms are not people and can't strive for e

My take on the problem (predates Graeber's book though): http://250bpm.com/blog:44 http://250bpm.com/blog:44 TL;DR: Firms are not people and can't strive for efficiency. Only individuals can. Once the financial incentives of individuals are misaligned with the financial incentives of the firm, the firm is going to lose (and pay for useless jobs).

jernfrost 9y ago
I liked a lot your analogy with altruism. Wish I had thought of that one myself ;-) I probably disagree with the notion that people actively seek to create bullshit work for themselves, initially. I think a lot of bullshit jobs is something people realize they are doing after the fact when it is hard to change careers or find another job. They then engage in a sort of cover up operation to avoid losing that bullshit job. Of course there are a lot of bullshit jobs which exist due to regulations and red tape. People might seek a lot of bullshit jobs simply because they have high status and pay. E.g. it is well paid to be a lawyer and high status, despite the fact that a lot of lawyer work, is just bullshit. I also think everybody could have been employed despite removing bullshit jobs, it is just that people would simply need to work a lot fewer hours. This assumes of course a gradual change. If we removed all bullshit jobs tomorrow, there would for structural reasons be a lot of people who can't change to other activities easily. I also think that a lot of bullshit work, isn't 100% bullshit. There are perhaps 10 hours worth of work to be done each week. However workers have no incentive to expose that, because otherwise they could not excuse the pay they get. Also people are proud and don't want to look like they are lazy or working less than others. So in a sense people end up doing bullshit to simply not look worse. So part of the solution is also to stop valuing work so dam high. We have a tendency to glorify work. I personally think people would end up doing useful things for the most part if given the choice. People are unnecessarily concerned with others being lazy.
- rumcajz 9y ago
  > I probably disagree with the notion that people actively seek to create bullshit work for themselves, initially. It's a matter of rationalization IMO. You have no job. Then you get an offer. The job seems to suck and be useless so you come up with reasons why it matters. That way you can both put food on the table and keep self-esteem. > So part of the solution is also to stop valuing work so dam high. That may be already happening: "Beginning in 1973, the GSS showed a card to the person being interviewed and asked, “Would you please look at this card and tell me which one thing on this list you would most prefer in a job?” The card had these choices: * High income * No danger of being fired * Chances for advancement * Working hours are short; lots of free time * Work important and gives a feeling of accomplishment "After the subject gave his first priority, the interviewer ascertained which were his second, third, fourth, and last priorities. The item was given in almost every survey from 1973 through 1994. Then the GSS dropped it for the next twelve years, perhaps because the answers had been so consistent. Among prime-age whites, the most popular first choice was always work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment,” getting an average of 58 percent of the votes in each decade. The two least-chosen first choices were always short work hours (averaging 4 percent) and no danger of being fired (6 percent). "In 2006, the GSS resurrected the question, and the results were startling. The 58 percent that had always voted first place to work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment” was down to 43 percent. First-place votes for short working hours more than doubled to 9 percent. “No danger of being fired” doubled to 12 percent, with another 13 percent ranking it in second place.

jernfrost 9y ago

I liked a lot your analogy with altruism. Wish I had thought of that one myself ;-) I probably disagree with the notion that people actively seek to create bullshit work for themselves, initially. I think a lot of bullshit jobs is something people realize they are doing after the fact when it is hard to change careers or find another job. They then engage in a sort of cover up operation to avoid losing that bullshit job. Of course there are a lot of bullshit jobs which exist due to regulations and red tape. People might seek a lot of bullshit jobs simply because they have high status and pay. E.g. it is well paid to be a lawyer and high status, despite the fact that a lot of lawyer work, is just bullshit. I also think everybody could have been employed despite removing bullshit jobs, it is just that people would simply need to work a lot fewer hours. This assumes of course a gradual change. If we removed all bullshit jobs tomorrow, there would for structural reasons be a lot of people who can't change to other activities easily. I also think that a lot of bullshit work, isn't 100% bullshit. There are perhaps 10 hours worth of work to be done each week. However workers have no incentive to expose that, because otherwise they could not excuse the pay they get. Also people are proud and don't want to look like they are lazy or working less than others. So in a sense people end up doing bullshit to simply not look worse. So part of the solution is also to stop valuing work so dam high. We have a tendency to glorify work. I personally think people would end up doing useful things for the most part if given the choice. People are unnecessarily concerned with others being lazy.

rumcajz 9y ago
> I probably disagree with the notion that people actively seek to create bullshit work for themselves, initially. It's a matter of rationalization IMO. You have no job. Then you get an offer. The job seems to suck and be useless so you come up with reasons why it matters. That way you can both put food on the table and keep self-esteem. > So part of the solution is also to stop valuing work so dam high. That may be already happening: "Beginning in 1973, the GSS showed a card to the person being interviewed and asked, “Would you please look at this card and tell me which one thing on this list you would most prefer in a job?” The card had these choices: * High income * No danger of being fired * Chances for advancement * Working hours are short; lots of free time * Work important and gives a feeling of accomplishment "After the subject gave his first priority, the interviewer ascertained which were his second, third, fourth, and last priorities. The item was given in almost every survey from 1973 through 1994. Then the GSS dropped it for the next twelve years, perhaps because the answers had been so consistent. Among prime-age whites, the most popular first choice was always work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment,” getting an average of 58 percent of the votes in each decade. The two least-chosen first choices were always short work hours (averaging 4 percent) and no danger of being fired (6 percent). "In 2006, the GSS resurrected the question, and the results were startling. The 58 percent that had always voted first place to work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment” was down to 43 percent. First-place votes for short working hours more than doubled to 9 percent. “No danger of being fired” doubled to 12 percent, with another 13 percent ranking it in second place.